What are millionaires for? Why, to pay for things like this:
Gizmodo’s Martin Lynch writes:
A UK designer is about to take the wraps off a unique floating chair/recliner called The Lounger, inspired by the Landspeeder from Star Wars.
Designed by 40-year Keith Dixon from Middleton, the futuristic looking Lounger has taken 5 years to create and allows you to float above the base thanks to the use of repelling magnetic forces in the base and the lounger itself.
We are not talking a few centimetres off the base either but up to 14ins so that you get that whole ‘floating sensation’. That of course depends on how much you weigh. If you’re close to the 266lbs [19 stone] limit then maybe you should drop that to 4ins or less.
There are restraining rods to prevent the seat from shooting off to the sides and users are warned to keep it at least 5 feet from the telly. And make sure you don’t have a pacemaker.
Apart from that, you’re good to float from March 16 when The Lounger goes on sale for a cool £5,875. That should bring some people back to Earth with a bump.
Which is why I mention the millionaires. The millionaires will decide whether they think this is a cool idea. If they decide that it is, some of them will buy it, thus paying for about an eighth of the research and development costs. If the ones that buy it like it, more millionaires will buy it, thus paying for another quarter of the R and D. Many more chairs will then be made, for sale at a rather lower price, slightly better. Pretty soon, we’ll all be able to buy them, either at Ikea or at Curry’s, for £99.99 a pop, and half a decade later for £34.99, with additional features that the early adopter millionaires never dreamed of.
Why can’t schoolznhospitalz be done more like this and less the way they are now?
Mm.
Magnetorepusion is neat and all that, but my life has gotten a little too data-intensive for strong magnetic fields in my immediate vicinity to be a good thing. A chair that corrupts the data on my laptop’s HD is not a good thing.
Meh. Furniture is pretty expensive in general. If this came to my local store I might buy it, and I’m not rich.
Brian, you are right to mention the millionaires angle; as you no doubt know, Hayek made this point in The Constitution of Liberty – that innovation usually starts as a luxury for the filthy rich, such as air travel, central heating, laser surgery or foreign holidays. Once they set off, the costs of doing these things starts to fall due to economies of scale as more money gets poured in.
Of course, a substitute for this is having a government shovel vast grants on such luxuries. Occasionally it will generate a positive spin-off, but the benefit of leaving this to private sector is that the people who spend the money get to use it and take responsibility if it does not work.
the wife would demand an eject feature.
Does it come with a cupholder?
>> Why can’t schoolznhospitalz be done more like this and less the way they are now?
Mmm … maybe because schools and hospitals are actually organisations made of thousands of people with serious, important and sometimes lifesaving needs (education/medicine), and not some inanimate object designed for pure leisure? No one is going to cry if this chair, as interesting concept as it may be, does not become the de-facto standard in your living rooms in the future. So comparing the two is idiotic at best.
JP >> that innovation usually starts as a luxury for the filthy rich, such as air travel, central heating, laser surgery or foreign holidays.
As much as I am used to heaps of pure nonsense on libertarian blogs, this sure takes the prize. “Foreign holidays” is now considered an innovation?? As to the rest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_heating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history
Even brief read of those articles shows that not only those “innovations” (and I am using quotes here because technically they not really innovations on their own, but either a combination of multiple scientific discoveries culminating in serious technological breakthrough like in the case of Laser, or a gradual improvement of a relatively simple yet novel concept over many centuries like in the case of central heating) were not in fact luxuries provided for and paid for by “filthy rich”, but were results of many years or even centuries of serious scientific research, accumulation of knowledge in engineering and design as well as rigorous testing (sometimes with deadly consequences for inventors themselves, like in case of early air flights).
And although it is customary to credit certain people with certain inventions/designs/ideas, like Wright brothers for the first airplane flight as one example or Karl Benz for first automobile, etc, those innovations/designs/ideas were many years in development prior to producing actual results. Wright brothers achieved breakthrough, but they certainly did not “invent” air flight or air travel or flight theory itself, nor did the “filthy rich” have had much to do with any of this.
To claim that innovation starts as a luxury for “filthy rich” is beyond ignorance and quite frankly is an insult to the talented and brightest who move the scientific and engineering progress forward.
Reminds me of a dentist’s chair.
You would need a TV to float in sync with the chair.
Neither Brian nor I would claim that all innovation starts as a luxury good, eventually becoming available to the mass market, but to deny that much of it does is, to use your expression, “beyond ignorance”. The first people able to afford flights were rich people, not the working class; the first people to have central heating were rich; the first to have cars were, in relative terms, rich. The first wristwatches were made for the rich, and so on. To deny this is pointless.
This argument, of course, tees off leftists who hate the idea that inequality, or the existence of vast fortunes, can have positive effects for society as a whole.
Here’s hoping you don’t have any cards with a magnetic stripe.
ClockworkOrange,
not really innovations on their own, but either a combination of multiple scientific discoveries culminating in serious technological breakthrough like in the case of Laser
That sure sounds like an innovation to me.
I also think you’re in danger of getting a little too Robert Peel – “The right honourable gentleman is forever tracing the steam engine back to the tea kettle” – Disraeli. Yeah, fine, without – say – the atomic theory of matter no lasers but then the atomic theory is based upon… Hell, let’s go all the way back to Pythagoras! The laser was still invented by Charles Townes. The fact that he’d read a few books on physics is… Well, whadya expect?
The Wrights solved the control problem of flight, they were also innovators in producing a much lighter engine and bingo! Of course people going back to Bernoulli (forget which one) contributed but the Wrights were stubborn buggers who distrusted theory. They examined bird wings and spent an awful lot of time with their wind-tunnel getting the wings right. To say their work was merely a culmination of knowledge that had accumulated is rather dismissive and not very accurate. Not least because they took a very different approach to their (unsuccessful) contemporaries.
I’m sorry, but the rich do get most stuff first. Compare automobile ownership 1908, 2008; Foreign holidays 1958, 2008; Refrigerator ownership 1938, 2008. I appreciate this is not always the case. TVs, computers and a few other things spring to mind but… the fact remains usually true.
Here’s a last one to ponder next time you have some pop and discard the Al can. Napolean himself had an aluminium cutlery set. It was really cutting edge at the time and only the filthy rich could afford items made from the stuff. The idea of just throwing away something made from this extraordinarily expensive metal was unthinkable.
Not the greatest examples. Remember that TVs first went on sale in the ’30s, not the ’50s. I’ll give you personal computers, but that only reinforces the point. Not many people could afford a UNIVAC.
Your correlation and causation is all messed up.
There is a huge difference between simply being able to afford new gadgets and “innovation usually starts as a luxury for the filthy rich” as you claimed. Surely rich people now and back then could afford to buy new technologies, but that absolutely does not mean that progress is moved forward based on their whims.
When Wright brothers (again to use just one example) launched their aircraft, I am pretty sure last thing on their mind was whether it will be a financial success (be it among rich or poor) – the simple fact that they created a mean of transport that could take off the ground and carry on flying for extended period of time, something that has not been achieved before with any degree of reliability or success overshadowed any other consideration. It was the breakthrough, because it was proven that it can be done. Afterwards, it was only a matter of time, money and further technological development – people would still be flying airplanes today, even if rich did not fly them back in early 1900’s.
Thus to claim that air flight or travel or any other major life changing invention in the history of human progress, per se, was created as a luxury for the rich (or was driven by the rich if you want) is utterly ridiculous. Military probably jumped on the airplane bandwagon as soon as its advantages on the battlefield became obvious and ever since have been on the forefront of aviation technology. In fact there are many everyday inventions that we are using today that were originally designed exclusively for military purposes. Would you claim that “innovation usually starts as a luxury for the military-industrial complex” too? And who was the rich fool that bought first ever wheel?
People invent, design, research, study because they have ability, talent, and desire to do so (some more gifted that others obvously). Some of them get paid well and some do not get paid at all and die in poverty, but for the most part all of their work lives on. People invented, designed, researched, studied 100 and 1000 and 10000 years ago. Thats one of the most essential traits of human evolution if you will. And it will continue with or without extremely wealthy buying the floating chair gizmos.
>> This argument, of course, tees off leftists who hate the idea that inequality, or the existence of vast fortunes, can have positive effects for society as a whole.
I don’t begrudge anyone their wealth, aside from ill-gained fortunes like criminal enterprises and such, but your argument is flawed at it’s core, so it can’t in reality “tee off” anyone.
To the extent that large organizations can afford what the vast majority of individuals cannot, this is an excellent description of what happens. Generalize “wealthy people” to “wealthy customers” and you’ve got it.
NM>> To say their work was merely a culmination of knowledge that had accumulated is rather dismissive and not very accurate.
Read the wikipedia article. Serious research on heavier-than-air flying was going on since at least 30 years before the Wrights brothers flight. So it’s not like people woke up one day and found out that someone built first ever airplane. There had been flying machines before them, just not as successful. And I never said “merely”, kindly refrain of putting words in my mouth. No one is disputing their achievement, but it definitely came on the back of decades of scientific and technological research in this field. Hence it’s not pure innovation but a culmination of massive work conducted by previous generation of aviation pioneers. Amazing nevertheless, but credit should be given where it’s due to all involved if you want to maintain objectivity.
>> I’m sorry, but the rich do get most stuff first. Compare automobile ownership 1908, 2008; Foreign holidays 1958, 2008; Refrigerator ownership 1938, 2008.
So. What does this platitude have to do with price of tea in China? It is not an argument and it does not prove anything either way. And these statistics are meaningless, of course there were not many automobiles around in 1908 when the whole automotive industry was in it’s infancy. The real mass production started when assembly lines were introduced by H Ford in the early 20th century, thus enabling manufacturers to crank out massive amounts of stuff. Without that breakthrough in manufacturing and company organisational structure automobiles would still be few and far between (as would almost everything else).
‘Luxury’ equals unnecessary for survival and reproduction.
You appear to be confusing ‘invention’ with ‘innovation’. Because the process you describe is, in fact, ‘innovation’.
There appears to me to be, contrary to first appearance, a very strong ‘passive actor’ role of the the researcher in the process in this statement (and the rest of your comment). Scientific research does not just ‘happen’, it is sponsored and paid for with both money and effort. Even the effort requires the luxury of not having to perform other labor to feed yourself. There is an economic actor driving research. But the nature of research is that economic angels (whether separate entity or the researcher personally) have to contribute resources in excess of what they need to survive. In other words, ‘luxury’ drives research.
The same applies to the testing. That is economically just part of the research process. Somebody has to provide the ‘luxury’ of resources to support it. Whether a hired test pilot or the designer personally, the testing process itself is a ‘luxury’ because the testing process is not necessary for the basic subsistence of the actors.
Luxury drives all expansions of knowledge.
Forgot to add:
>> Napolean himself had an aluminium cutlery set.
Yeah. He also started several wars of conquest resulting in massive number of deaths of his own people as well as foreigners. Not to mention plethora of other “rich and powerful” who enjoyed luxuries while at the same time starting wars, famines, political persecutions, enjoying fruits of slave labour etc.
On the balance I would rather still eat with a wooden spoon.
I thought the (original) point being made was that the commoditisation of an object / invention / thing can only occur if, to begin with, the thing is proven in a real market, and that necessarily the first market is, due to costs, a small one only inhabited by the rich.
Then mr angry clockworktwat went off on one, God knows why, because he objected to the parallel being drawn with this idea to schoolz n hospitalz.
Is it not true that the first schoolz were, in fact, created and populated by those with money? People like Kingz and Queenz, Lordz and Ladeez. (sorry, carried away by teh z thing now). And then they ‘commoditised’, letting in first the middle class (Cardinal Wolsey being a notable benificiary) and thus onwards to us plebs today who can aspire to the dreaming spires – or failing that, some obscure former CAT / poly / uni to sudy ‘meeja’, surfing or golf course design.
Their motivation may not have been financial, but it is a fact that the first group of people able to afford air travel were the rich; as a result of this, air travel became cheaper, hence my argument in defence of Brian’s comment on millionaires.
I am emphatically not saying that the only thing that motivates innovation is a desire for luxury.
“Mmm … maybe because schools and hospitals are actually organisations made of thousands of people with serious, important and sometimes lifesaving needs (education/medicine)”
Like food, airlines, car companies and banks? All private sector organisations that deal in serious matters. All keep working at delivering better services to their customers.
Then again, the NHS can’t get replaced by a Toyota or a Tesco. They can carry on running inefficient, dirty hospitals.
Further to Tim Almond’s point, someone (sorry, I forget who) pointed out how odd it is that we constantly hear of our schoolznhospitals being overburdened by the influx of immigrants. Tesco’s isn’t overburdened. Tesco’s sees an influx of lovely customers.
ClockworkOrange,
I flatter myself to think that my knowledge of aviation history goes a leetle bit beyond the pages of wikipedia!
What do those stats have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, quite a bit actually. Ever been to Dove Cottage in the English Lake District? It’s where Wordsworth lived. Tea was very expensive then. The Wordsworth’s were relatively wealthy. They used their tea leaves twice and then handed them over to a poorer neighbour. What made the difference? Well, tea first came to England as a luxury, then for the middle classes and for the past hundred and odd years it’s been a commonplace. I’m drinking it now. Innovation and commerce were linked here. First old clinker built ships, then clippers, then steam engines, turbines etc.
The one unifying thing is the rich get it first. D’oh!
The fact that Napolean had an Al cutlery set has nothing to do with his wars of conquest although if you could demonstrate a connection then I’m sure a whole novel area of historical research would open up.
I was merely using him as an example of a technological thing which was once the preserve of the supreme despot of most of Europe and is now affordable by everyone. D’oh!
Talking of wooden spoons, I think you deserve one!
I think Mid’s point is very valid. I am about to have a big flat screen TV delivered. I don’t need one. The 14″ portable in the corner of the room does fine. Hell, do I even need a TV at all? I could make do with radio. Even radio is a luxury because countless generations lived, laughed and loved telling stories round the camp fire.
The latest S-Class Mercedes and quite a few other pricey motors have a HUD. This tech first turned up thirty + years ago on multi-million pound aircraft. It is now on top-range cars. Anyone giving odds that it won’t be standard on a little run-about within a decade?
Sheesh!
I buy and sell computers and have my finger on the pulse. I know the premium “early adopters” pay.
Hell, I remember when mobile phones were only for the seriously minted…
Magnetic repulsion is really neat an’ all . . . But the designer clearly didn’t give any thought beyond the floating chair concept. That thing looks about as comfortable as a rack – and nothing breathes as well as clear plexi-glass! I don’t think the designer sat in his own chair!
“Why can’t schoolznhospitalz be done more like this and less the way they are now?”
Because those are services, not manufactured products, and they are largely at the mercy of Baumol’s cost disease(Link).
that is pretty rad idea..
is it coming to australia cuz that’s were i live..
how high is 14 inches in metres/cm ??
good idea but i would only pay 10,000 – 35,000 at the most..
goodluck hope all goes well.