8:37 a.m. on March 17, 2012 (EDT)
I love this kind of competition [...] Usually makes for better products and price.
The problem is, Gtx is reportedly stifling the competition which would enable consumer choice and therefore 'performance'.
With all of the increasing expense of the new 'breathable' fabrics available, I wonder if it is more marketing hype than anything.
Having followed comments on the new stuff, here and elsewhere, I believe that fabric technology has indeed advanced, at least beyond the nineties, when it seemed to plateau.
As for "marketing hype", by definition it is 'more than anything', where "anything" is a distinguishable difference. Advertising is mostly about distinguishing the indistinguishable, of labels obscuring the sameness. People see a label and miss the product. But in this case, the differences can even be demonstrated on youtube, and anything field relevant can be taken on board with varying degrees of trust specific to the individual's relationship with the 'tester'. Or, if you can afford it, personally evaluated.
The important thing, to the discerning enduser, is whether or not consumer choice in 'advanced fabrics' is being hampered by the strong-arming of the biggest player. I have a reduced amount of products to select from, when it comes to buying boots, for example: membrane = 95%; non-membrane =5%. Of that 95%, 5% = non-Gtx. And I believe that I have more choice than most, living in a county in England with about 50 different gear shops.
So for me, it starts to look like what Morlacchi refers to in the article is directly affecting my ability to find the best possible product (for my impossible feet). And that makes me angry, because it doesn't have to be that way.
No one really assumes free market competition if they are at all well-informed. All big businesses benefit from state assistance, whether it is through the universities, direct research funding, military contracts (even Patagonia) or other forms of procurement, loan-guarantees, and so on and so forth. But a complete lack of regulation should not go hand in hand with various attempts to widen the trough that is corporate welfare. We need anti-monopoly activity by the state and/or by the endusers that are the most affected. Just look at the result of economic anarchy since 2008.
Corporate sovereignty has just about been accepted in society; does that mean we should accept corporate imperialism? Money talks; should it also bark orders?
Which is not to say that Gtx has not been a major benefit to us outdoor types (dog walkers included). Years ago, people would rather climb a mountain in the rain wearing waxed cotton than put up with non-breathable fabrics. And the 'horizontal' integration, the over-involment perhaps, by Gtx in the production of outdoor gear may have benefited us more than we acknowledge. My eVent jacket, for instance, has pockets that funnel water into them by virtue of the incompetent design. Luckily, the fabric is waterproof and stores it for me (I can attend parties and steal beer). Would this have happened under the 'domineering' methodology of Gtx production?
So, apologies for the rant (stuck indoors on a beautiful day) but I reckon that if we, the serious class of outdoor people (just above the 'dog walkers'), don't do something to support the industrial innovators, which we depend on, we will be left with less choice than we have reason to prefer. No more mafia-tex, thank you very much.
Jon
more»
