Spread The Love (And Pay Us)

Digitus1337 writes "Wired has an article up about a new online service known as 'FunHi.' You sign up and join a community, and give your fellows gifts, but as Wired has reported, 'these are not ordinary gifts. They're purely digital: little flashing icons of cars, planes, diamond rings and other virtual representations of expensive items included in messages members send each other. And FunHi members don't seem to care that the real money they're spending on the gifts, at prices as high as $30 an item, is going straight into the company's coffers." This leaves just one question unanswered... why didn't I think of this?" It sounds like an April Fool's Joke, but then, so does online trading of Everquest loot.

wow...

[AssProphet]

FunHI - yet another reason capitalism should come with a warning

Status symbols

[gbjbaanb]

I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol, as is using a $10 bill to light your cigar.

So too is throwing your money away with a virtual gift. let them who want to, do it.

Like....

[bitchell]

Like purchasing a square on the moon. Whats the point.

A fool and their money are soon parted.

More proof that...

[Omestes]

A fool and their money soon part. Capitalism seems to make this easier, and the internet makes it EVEN easier. I say good for this company, if an idiot wants to spend $30 on a picture of a ring, let him, it is no less idiotic than spending a couple grand on a real one.

Charm Bracelets?

[themightythor]

These sound like the charm bracelets that my little sister drooled over in the 80's. Except even more pointless.

Much ado about nothing...

[bc90021]

From the article:

"Selman says FunHi has banked about $10,000 in the month since FunHi launched. And given that Georgiades himself has paid about 10 percent of that, it's clear that not all of the service's 6,500 active members are doing the same thing."

If two people (the article mentions one other having spent $1000) account for 20% of the $10K that this company has made in a month, this seems more like silliness on the part of a very few people, and shouldn't really be considered "newsworthy".

People will pay a lot for esteem and attention

[Trespass]

It may sound silly, but little things like this are seen as validating by a lot of people who spend a significant amount of time online. You don't really 'have' anything, but you know that someone, somewhere spent money on you.

Brilliant! Slashdot could make money this way...

[jrduncans]

How I wish that I were unscrupulous enough to come up with such an idea. This system would be equivalent to: if Slashdot moderation were geared towards highly rating those posts that advertised for their sponsors...

Hmmm

[cca93014]

Just as well there aren't 2 billion starving people in the...

Oh, wait.

no different from diamonds

[hak1du]

The real value of diamonds is a small fraction of what they cost in the market. The reason they are expensive is because a smart cartell has established them as expensive, if valueless, tokens of affection. And there is ample precedent in biology: males are supposed to demonstrate their wealth and prowess by not having to care about expending costly resources on useless pursuits.

However, if you are going to do this, why not dispose of your resources in some socially valuable way? Demonstrate your boundless resources by making a "platinum circle" donation to your local opera house, either in your own name or in your sweetheart's name.

Re:Status symbols

[Anonymous Coward]

The diamond ring is only a status symobol because of the virtual scarcity that DeBeers, etc create. It's closer to this FunHI scam than many relize.

Re:Status symbols

[jkabbe]

I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol

Agreed. Buying a diamond is saying "here DeBeers, have some money" just so other people can see that you gave DeBeers lots of money. It's simply a more socially accepted method of throwing your money away.

Oh, hush.

[cduffy]

It's not like the money that's spent on this is taken out of circulation, no? It's just moved somewhere else -- a company that pays its employees and (presumably) its shareholders [via dividends], who it turn spend it on... well, whatever they spend it on, which may or may not include feeding starving people.

Indeed, if the people who spend money on this are the kind of people who aren't inclined to give money to feed the starving, then it's to the benefit of those who are starving that the money is now out of their hands and in someone else's.

Re:Way too much.

[BasharTeg]

It's not like there aren't a thousand other "accepted" hobbies in the world that eat up far more time and money. Let people spend their life / time / money as they see fit. If you don't like it, just don't play. If you're just knocking on other people because you can't seem to find a hobby that interests you as much, I pity you.

Re:Like....

[strictnein]

It probably won't, but it could - especially if you buy it for a child and they keep it into adulthood.

Except for the people who are "selling" land on the moon, have no legal right to do so, and therefore you are just giving money to them as an example of your own stupidity.

Re:Popularity

[lukewarmfusion]

Yeah, I'm sure that they're all very attractive. Just like in real life.

Deception [210west.com]. The Internet's full of it.

Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch...

[websaber]

It's getting to the point were some people have so much that there's nothing you can buy them, so now you can give the thought with out burdening them with the need to actually deal with the item.

A double standard?

[abh]

There's post after post on here of people saying "this is stupid", "I can't believe these people pay for stupid icons", and "why would anyone buy virtual anything".

Yet there's quite a bit of the /. crowd that thinks it is perfectly normal and acceptable to sell items or characters for an EverQuest game. Hello... Pot, you have a call on line one. It's Kettle.

Re:On the plus side...

[bluelantern]

Probably not. Barnum's Corollary: If a sucker is born every minute now, a sucker will be born at least every minute in the future.

Not to mention having a high IQ is far less correlated with being a sucker than being born in the suburbs.

Trading EQ loot

[Anonymous Daredevil]

I still don't understand why some people think paying cash for EQ loot is strange.

You pay cash to play the game at all in the first place. Many people then pay cash for the strategy guide to let them play better. Some people buy new equipment to let them play better, like a new flightstick with detached throttle for their new flight sim.

In the old adventure game days if you got stuck, you could call a number and pay per minute to listen to hints to get you unstuck. You basically paid money to continue in the game.

What if you didn't need a strategy, or a hint to progress in the game? What if what you needed was better equipment or more levels? Why would it be so strange to pay for those, but not the other things?

Re:Snobby Greedy Bitch...

[SYFer]

The people playing this are probably not the types who "have everything" at all. Sadly, as with most things bling, its the people who can least afford it that are drawn in like moths to the flame.

Wealth is wealth

[mangu]

When doesn't wealth trickle down to the poor? Answer: when resources are being consumed. For instance, if gasoline is being burned in SUV's when it's needed for tractors, that could be an example of wealth not trickling down. However, I believe the problem of hunger isn't caused by insufficient food,but by bad distribution. Therefore, getting money out of the hands of those who have it will, eventually, put it in the hands of the needy. Spend it on a Porsche, the Porsche factory will pay some workers, who will pay their housemaids: that's "trickle down" for you.

Re:Before you go off on FunHi people being stupid.

[statusbar]

This is all good.

My new realization is: A fool and his money are best parted. The last thing you want are bunches of fools with effective personal or political power.

--jeff++

What are you doing

[KalvinB]

on the internet? That money you're wasting on yourself could be better spent feeding the hungry. I bet you have the nerve to drive a car, too.

Starvation isn't a money problem. It doesn't take money to plant a garden and grow food. The problem is the assholes in charge who prevent the food from going to people who need it that need to be overthrown.

There's plenty of food. And buying more of it isn't going to make the situation better for anyone but the assholes in charge who hoard it for themselves.

The poor will always be with you. If you feel so compelled, help the poor in far away places. I'd rather help those around me. And that involves buying crap that helps pay their wages so that they don't starve.

I don't suppose you stopped to think that if nobody bought anything they didn't need, 90%+ of the population would be out of work and unable to afford to eat. Our society functions based on the buying and selling of crap. Just like every other country.

If you go to the Mexican border at least, everybody is selling something. Buying a pot or a flower you don't need really equates to feeding the seller and his family.

Buying a stupid little icon helps keep this guy fed and with the extra money he buys more crap which puts money in a lot of people's pockets so they can eat and so on down the line.

To claim that we shouldn't buy anything frivilous is incredibly short sighted. I don't think you realize how many poor people survive selling frivilous crap working at fast food joints, restaurants and what not. You think corporations should just give people money? Where do you think their money comes from?

Ben

Re:no different from diamonds

[mangu]

Demonstrate your boundless resources by making a "platinum circle" donation to your local opera house

So, what's the "real value" of an opera house? In what way is the intrinsic value of listening to music greater than the intrinsic value of looking at a sparkling stone?

Although so many people deride money, it's in the end one of the greatest and most important inventions ever made. Money is what allows one to make comparisons between the value of wildly different things, as judged by society as a whole, and make choices accordingly. You may not agree with the choices other people make, but that's how democracy and the market work. If you attribute more value to an opera house than to a diamond, that's your choice. Give money to the opera house instead of buying a diamond. But it seems that, cartel or not, a lot of people think diamonds have a higher value than opera houses.

Re:Status symbols

[neurojab]

>This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them. It has nothing to do with status symbols.

Yeah right. Diamonds look nice, but so do countless other less expensive gemstones. Diamonds do have status associated with them, and that status and "tradition" is due to being propped up by DeBeers. If people just wanted to buy something that looked nice, why do wedding rings always have to have diamonds in them? Surely a few people must think a ring looks just fine without having to be diamond-encrusted, or perhaps prefer emeralds, opals, or rubies.

The previous poster is quite right about the diamond cartel, your positive feelings about diamonds are in no small part due to their propoganda.

>Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.

It's possible the previous poster has never spoken to a girl. It's also possible he talks to intelligent women instead of wasting his time on materialistic girls.

Re:Status symbols

[hanssprudel]

a) Cubic zirconium looks just as good. Many other gems that cost less actually look better.

b) Even if you have specially trained eyes that can actually tell the difference, and you have some strange need for the diamonds, then modern industrially produced diamonds are actually more pure then mined ones. You need a microscope to tell the difference, and when you do, you rule out the man made one because it is too perfect. Yet the gemstones that DeBeer's has managed to manipulate you into buying are all mined - simply because they are about status rather than beauty.

Re:Status symbols

[the_consumer]

Actually, a nerd is more likely to test a purported diamond's hardness against softer materials in order to prove its authenticity.

Horrible

[megan_of_wutai]

FunHi seems to be an extreme manifestation of the overly materialistic culture it has emanated from (people who call themselves a "gangsta" or a "playa" or a "hunie", modern popular culture basically), it's just... too horrible for words.

People judging how popular and loved they are on the basis of how much other people have spent on them *puke*.

I guess they could all be doing it in an ironic and political fashion to show all members of capitalist societies to be whores. I'm sorta doubting that's the case, personally.

Not, brittany,

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

She's too obvious. Now a contest between liv tyler and George bush.... Thats got more of a dilema.

Re:Popularity

[dasmegabyte]

Man, in a way, we're always buying nothing. Buy a $15 poster, that's just $.10 worth of paper covered in $.50 worth of ink. Buy a $6salad, you have $.75 worth of vegetable parts in a $.20 plastic case. Shit, even a $200 computer chip is just a few ounces of sand with a negligible amount of metal.

But that doesn't mean these things don't have value. If you think that poster will look good on the wall, you'll pay for it. If you're hungry, you'll buy the salad. And if you need to process something, you'll buy the chip.

This value is in people's perception of the extra effort spent by people in processing these raw materials. Now, those raw materials are basically worthless in the digital world, but if you can process them into a form that people value, then they're worth it.

That doesn't mean this idea isn't stupid, of course. If I want my friends to know I care about them, I'll send them some bitchin' MP3s.

Re:Status symbols

[el_gordo101]

a) Cubic zirconium looks just as good. Many other gems that cost less actually look better.

Try to explain that to a real-world, emotion-having, concerned-about-what-her-friends-think woman and see how far you get. "But honey, the Cubic zirconium is just as good as a diamond, plus we aren't supporting DeBeers! Hey wait, where are you going? Honey? Baby?"

Re:no different from diamonds

[Animats]

Yeah, right. Try to sell a diamond. See what offers you get.

For a good laugh, search eBay for "diamonds". Or worse, Google, for "we buy diamonds". You'll see some of the slimiest ads around. "Diamond buyers" with Hotmail addresses. Cubic zircons advertised as diamonds. The same photo appearing in multiple eBay ads for different items.

It's like they have to invent things for rich

[Anonymous Coward]

people to spend their money on. Once they've bought all the neccesities and run out of neat toys to buy, what else is there ? Virtual presents for virtual girlfriends.

Re:Status symbols

[be-fan]

And we're back to the point about how diamonds are just status symbols.

Re:A double standard?

[John Hasler]

Some Slashdot posters think FunHi gifts are dumb. Other Slashdot posters sell Everquest stuff. Hint: they are _different_ _people_.

Re:Status symbols

[BlackFoliage]

Or you could find a real-world, emotion-having, NOT-concerned-about-what-idiots-think women who shares your values. Do you really want to spend your life with someone who throws ethics out the window for a sparkly piece of junk?

Irony

[mabu]

What's really sad is that I bet some of the "high rollas" on this site are actually buying themselves gifts from alternate accounts, or are company shills designed to motivate a much smaller number of legitimate members to compete for more intangible crap.

Ultimately, you have to respect a venture like this, that can make a person alternate between thoughts of "WTF This is sick" and "Wow, this is genius". It's both interesting & entertaining, and profoudly sad and pathetic as well. What an eloquent microcosm of capitalism, superficiality and materialism.

Re:Status symbols

[System.out.println()]

It more than "looks fine", cubic zirconium is indistinguishable from an actual diamond except with special equipment. But buying a cubic zirconium ring is often seen in society as, "My fiance(e) isn't worth a real diamond, here's a fake one." ....even if no one can tell. ....it makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Status symbols

[__aanebg9627]

Really, most of what we in the developed world spend money on is status symbols. The value in a Mercedes or a Rolex isn't in the actual car, it's in the status they provide. Why do people buy new cars? Status. Lights inside your case, to wow your friends at the LAN party? Status. A neatly mowed front lawn? Status. (Seriously! Read Thorstein Veblen's seminal _Theory of the Leisure Class_.) Martha Stewart housewares? Status.

The key to value and status is scarcity. Period. If something is useful, beautiful or cool, and scarce because it's programmed into the MMPORG, it's valuable. That scarcity value is no different than the scarcity value that comes from being stamped by a trademark (Rolex, Mercedes), artificial scarcity from a cartel (diamonds), or actual scarcity (land in Tokyo).

Outside of monopolies and cartels, what makes something scarce (and therefore valuable) is the time it takes to make or get. Stuff is valuable in MMPORGs because it takes time to get. This is no different than what makes some physical object valuable.

If you think about it, a deed or patent is just as virtual as that leet EQ weapon. There is no physical reality there, just ideas in peoples' heads (and laws to back them up, which are also virtual). The value is only in the usefulness and scarcity.

Which raises the question; How long until governments start trying to tax the online economies in MMPORGs?

Re:Status symbols

[rossifer]

some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them.

Sure, but they should buy them at the market price, not at the DeBeers artificial price. Just try to sell a diamond to a store for a fraction of the price they've got on a similar diamond. The moment you leave a retail store with a shiny new diamond, it loses 50-80% of it's value as a saleable good.

People who like diamonds should buy diamonds at estate sales and keep the DeBeers markup in their pocket. There are smaller jewelers who will help with this process, grading a diamond pre-sale (when possible), buying it for you, resetting it in your own jewelry, and selling you a very nice diamond ring for a small fraction of the price of the same ring from a retail store.

There's going to be a small diamond in my soon-to-be fiancee's ring (along with a similar sized garnet: our birthstones), but most of the money that DeBeers would prefer I spent on a diamond ring is going to be spent on her double laser eye surgery instead.

Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.

This is what's commonly known as an ad-hominem argument. It doesn't make your argument any more compelling, and often makes you look rather spiteful and mean-spirited. I'd recommend that you avoid similar statements in future discussions.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Status symbols

[WNight]

Does that mean the cz doesn't look like a diamond, or that she's a gold-digging whore who wants to know she can yank you around by your dick to the tune of $10k for a stupid rock?

Sorry, but it's the truth. If the ring will never be subjected to a test that would prove the stone isn't a cz then it should be irrelevant if it is. If she's demanding real diamond it's merely for a status symbol.

Perhaps I'm unreasonably rational and ignoring the emotional aspects, but I feel that if someone throws away a house down-payment (3-6 months after-tax wages, the "recommended" ammount, is probably 5-10% of the purchase value of a house in your price-range) just for bragging rights, they're an idiot.

Re:Why would I pay for this?

[hoop33]

But how is it rude when I'm specifically asking for this. I don't care if they want to spend $10 or $100. Just drop it in an envelope and exchange giftw with me. No problem.

It's your presumptuousness that's rude. When people give gifts, they do so because they want to, and want to express themselves through the gift. They're not signing up for some program you set up.