I see this pattern everywhere - the market bifurcating into a) race-to-the-bottom garbage products that are barely crossing the legal threshold of fit for purpose, and are essentially a huge waste of natural resources, and b) quality goods sold to specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced (to cover low volume of sales, and/or just because the market will bear it).
Does it have a name in economics? Are there good ways of preventing this from happening?
This is called market segmentation, and is for some reason considered a good thing. Actually it's the means to extract maximum cash out of customers who want anything more than the bare minimum.
Sears' niche was in the middle. Everything was good, but not great, quality. Products were durable, came with good warranties, and "We Service What We Sell". Sears sold to the middle class, with middle prices. They went bankrupt with that model.
Polarization is used to describe something similar for Job Market. But I am not aware of an exact term for Product. Bad money drives out good could also be used to describe it, or basically Good Enough is the enemy of better and best.
The problem is most people have very little understand of quality. And that is why Marketing matters.
In WebCam, most dont cares much about the quality because you rarely use it. It wasn't until pandemic people were forced to use it more often did they realise how crap it was.
Marketing is about educating customers why your product is better, how you should spend more on it. And Apple is an example, they are exceptionally good at it.
> usually severely overpriced
Most of the time I find that to be false. Not because of the market will bear it, but those market also requires constant innovation so profits are being funnel back into R&D. Generally speaking most "market will bear it" type of product disappear within 5 years when a competitor found they could make something better and cheaper.
I'm coming around to the "b) quality goods sold to specialists or companies, usually severely overpriced", is actually fairly priced. It just seems expensive compared to the junk that is incredibly cheap. I used to be worried about getting ripped off I never bought good quality but now I appreciate it.
Mirror less cameras aren't really overpriced. You can get a good entry level canon (M50) and a quality kit lens for 600$
Or you can get a Sony A6100 and crappier kit lens for 700$
These cameras have significant strong (e.g. aps-c sensor size) capabilities not found in anything except mirrorless and DSLR cameras. Seems not to be overpriced to me.
Overpriced is like what nvidia does to the quattro cards...
I wouldn't diss kit lenses... I built my reputation as a local photographer on a Nikon D3100-and-kit-lens Costco special. I could print shots at 13x19 and they'd come out crisp as hell
Hell, that DX 18-55 kit lens had, in some ways, better optics than the FX 24-120 that cost more than the entire D3100 kit
Does it have a name in economics? Are there good ways of preventing this from happening?