Comments on: Custom Consumerism http://socialuxe.com/2005/11/custom-consumerism/ A publication about social media, culture and consumerism by Eston Bond in the heart of Silicon Valley. Tue, 04 May 2010 23:13:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: The Numbers Guy : Starbucks Stays Mum on Drink Math http://socialuxe.com/2005/11/custom-consumerism/#comment-21430 The Numbers Guy : Starbucks Stays Mum on Drink Math Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:29:15 +0000 http://www.hyalineskies.com/blog/?p=478#comment-21430 [...] Not knowing how Starbucks did the math makes it impossible to check the number, or to know how menu changes have affected it. That might explain why Starbucks has in the past reported the number was 19,000, and later 55,000; and why others have reported numbers as high as 38 million. [...] [...] Not knowing how Starbucks did the math makes it impossible to check the number, or to know how menu changes have affected it. That might explain why Starbucks has in the past reported the number was 19,000, and later 55,000; and why others have reported numbers as high as 38 million. [...]

]]> By: Alexandra http://socialuxe.com/2005/11/custom-consumerism/#comment-17339 Alexandra Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:51:59 +0000 http://www.hyalineskies.com/blog/?p=478#comment-17339 My order is typically a tall bold coffee, not all this sexy stuff they have now...skinny this and skinny that! LOL. What a drag! My order is typically a tall bold coffee, not all this sexy stuff they have now…skinny this and skinny that! LOL. What a drag!

]]> By: Sheena Iyengar: Choice and its Discontents — Micromotives http://socialuxe.com/2005/11/custom-consumerism/#comment-914 Sheena Iyengar: Choice and its Discontents — Micromotives Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:53:20 +0000 http://www.hyalineskies.com/blog/?p=478#comment-914 [...] A visit to Starbucks alone allows us to choose from over 38 million potential coffee drinks. [...] [...] A visit to Starbucks alone allows us to choose from over 38 million potential coffee drinks. [...]

]]> By: Jeff Heuer http://socialuxe.com/2005/11/custom-consumerism/#comment-913 Jeff Heuer Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:16:47 +0000 http://www.hyalineskies.com/blog/?p=478#comment-913 Hi Eston, I like your site. I graduated UM Econ a few years ago, and stumbled here looking for a combinatorial analysis of Starbucks drinks. I referenced your calculation in my post Sheena Iyengar: Choice and Its Discontents at my econ blog, Micromotives. Best of luck! Jeff Hi Eston,

I like your site. I graduated UM Econ a few years ago, and stumbled here looking for a combinatorial analysis of Starbucks drinks. I referenced your calculation in my post Sheena Iyengar: Choice and Its Discontents at my econ blog, Micromotives. Best of luck!

Jeff

]]> By: hyalineskies 6.0 beta 3 » Shooting down Flock http://socialuxe.com/2005/11/custom-consumerism/#comment-834 hyalineskies 6.0 beta 3 » Shooting down Flock Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:42:30 +0000 http://www.hyalineskies.com/blog/?p=478#comment-834 [...] The world isn’t what it was five years ago: the Web most certainly isn’t new to the majority of users. We’re not new to this social Web game, either. Our tendencies to float toward extensibility and “custom consumerism” instead of targeted marketing. Spreadshirt allows you to create your own designed T-shirts, simply giving us the base interface and capability to do so. WordPress gives us the capability to post things, but it’s the extensibility allowed by plugins and themes that really add the true power to the system. Yahoo’s Widgets (previously Konfabulator) and Apple’s Dashboard give us that same sort of extensibility on the desktop. With Google’s Personalised Homepage and Protopage, we’re given a basic homepage from which we choose the features most relevant to us. Our favourite Web 2.0 applications are actually just base frameworks that we add our own functionality and content to instead of accepting pre-packaged functionality from others. Why, then, is Flock and its buzz seemingly missing this? Why are we to accept what their vision of an ideal browser is instead of building one for ourselves? What if we don’t want their specific functionality? We’re stuck with it. What if we want new functionality? Even though Flock’s Firefox compatibility allows the use of Extensions, Firefox stock extensions will not work in Flock without changes. Flock, when viewed in this grand social scheme of things, loses a lot of the lustre and social vision that they’re trying to build into it. [...] [...] The world isn’t what it was five years ago: the Web most certainly isn’t new to the majority of users. We’re not new to this social Web game, either. Our tendencies to float toward extensibility and “custom consumerism” instead of targeted marketing. Spreadshirt allows you to create your own designed T-shirts, simply giving us the base interface and capability to do so. WordPress gives us the capability to post things, but it’s the extensibility allowed by plugins and themes that really add the true power to the system. Yahoo’s Widgets (previously Konfabulator) and Apple’s Dashboard give us that same sort of extensibility on the desktop. With Google’s Personalised Homepage and Protopage, we’re given a basic homepage from which we choose the features most relevant to us. Our favourite Web 2.0 applications are actually just base frameworks that we add our own functionality and content to instead of accepting pre-packaged functionality from others. Why, then, is Flock and its buzz seemingly missing this? Why are we to accept what their vision of an ideal browser is instead of building one for ourselves? What if we don’t want their specific functionality? We’re stuck with it. What if we want new functionality? Even though Flock’s Firefox compatibility allows the use of Extensions, Firefox stock extensions will not work in Flock without changes. Flock, when viewed in this grand social scheme of things, loses a lot of the lustre and social vision that they’re trying to build into it. [...]

]]>