I saw this at work from the inside of a big telco that did this. They replaced one guy who needed only vague instructions to configure complex software replaced by a team of five who needed detailed step-by-step manuals written out by the vendor and still took twice as long and couldn't cope with any hiccups along the way.
I do not believe outsourcing saves money. It only does so either by cutting quality of service, or in cases where the IT department was heavily mismanaged anyway. Bring in capable management and you don't need to outsource.
I've never seen a case where outsourcing of general-purpose IT things saves money over the long-term. It might make the budget look better for a year or two. Which, I think, is the motivation for a lot of the people making decisions to outsource. It is cheaper right now, so who cares about later?
Special-purpose stuff can still be cheaper to outsource, though. If I need something to work next week and it would take my staff a month to get up to speed, I'd spend the money on outsourcing it.
I ordered a rustic pipe desk from Etsy a while back and the seller was not able to deliver the item on time. He/she communicated the issue so it wasn't that big of a deal for me. I had a prearranged vacation coming up while waiting for the item to be finished and sent, so things took a little bit longer then expected on both ends.
When I finally got back home and put the desk together, I noticed that there were items missing and some things had not been packaged well so they were damaged/scuffed in shipping. Most of the issues were minor and I decided to not make a stink about it with the seller as I could easily work around and fix the problems. I did however want to leave a review of my experience for the seller to be made aware and future buyers to be warned.
Etsy's policy was however to deny me to review an item outside of a certain time window. I emailed Etsy's customer service to petition that I should be allowed to leave a review even though my window had passed given that the seller could not deliver in the time he/she had promised. Etsy's replies and refusal to allow this left a permanent impression on me and I will never spend another dollar there as a result of this ordeal.
Honestly a time window is standard practice to prevent customers from potentially holding the ability to negatively review as leverage.
For example if they were to allow indefinite periods for reviews, then customers could hold off on reviewing for a year, then leverage it to get the seller to provide out-of-warranty service.
Not sure what their time limit is, this is the case for it. In any case, good customer service still means a human reviewing and deciding if it's appropriate at the edge cases of policy.
This is why centralized marketplaces in general are, in my opinion, on the way out. In the future people with something to offer will be able to offer it without being routed through one-size-fits-all platforms who want to control your options for communication, payment, reputation, shipping, etc. in a "my way or the highway" attitude. If one takes this perspective, then Ebay, Taobao, and Etsy are all anachronisms, though Amazon has smartly enhanced delivery speeds by focusing on logistics and will therefore maintain relevance. Why can't I barter for goods? Why can't I route around Paypal, credit cards, or USD? In the future, these will be normal consumer decisions.
Where will they get traffic? That's a fundamental reason people choose marketplaces like etsy in the first place and it's not easy to replicate without a lot of experience or luck.
> buyers also need some sort of discovery platform
These platforms exist in all sorts of places outside of marketplaces. Pinterest is essentially bookmarks for shopping. Ditto Wanelo (and other similar sites for different demographics/verticals). Certain Instagram networks are all about products. Babylist is to baby showers what The Knot is to bridal showers. And these are just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Greenhorn merchants love marketplaces b/c they want to market themselves at any cost. But I'm close with several former Etsy sellers who, once they achieved traction with their products, decided to build their brands on their own and not compete toe-to-toe with copycat sellers (which drove them bezerk, btw). Shopify + Facebook ads + Instagram can go a very long way.
> former Etsy sellers who, once they achieved traction with their products, decided to build their brands on their own and not compete toe-to-toe with copycat sellers
yeah, this is etsy's real problem - they do a bad job of keeping top sellers on the platform. i haven't seen much attrition because of copycats, but more that etsy is just a really bad platform for managing a big shop. the fact that your sellers went to shopify is, to me, just evidence of that.
You forget the successes of decentralization. In the same way that bureaucracy was surpassed with the web, torrents, and Bitcoin, so too will it be surpassed eventually in the field of business and consumer supply chains. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.
It is my opinion that Kim Dotcom's actions are both unlawful and wrong. They could have been unlawful but not wrong. Or lawful but wrong. Or even lawful and not wrong. However it is my opinion that they are simultaneously unlawful and wrong. Both the unlawfulness and wrongness are arguable on their own terms and merits without reference to the other.
You're free to disagree with me. You may hold a different opinion. That's perfectly fine. However a dissenting opinion does not mean I conflated the situation. It does not mean that I'm acting irrationally. It's simple a different opinion.
I don't mind downvotes for disagreeing with the HN HiveMind.
Your opinions by themselves are irrelevant. I care why I should agree with you. Convince me. Give it a try. That's the point of HN. If I just wanted to hear what strangers think without any discussion of the larger issues, I'd be on reddit.
So NZ has laws and treaties. Great. Should they? What's the tradeoff? Is the prosecution of someone who is clearly guilty allowing a greater evil to occur? Is the copyright system and corporate influence of governments a problem?
I would have loved to hear the answers to any of these questions, but what I got was essentially "he is a criminal" and "laws shouldn't be broken". Sure.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/public-universit...