For the life of me, I can't understand why this is such a trendy topic on HN. If you walk into any grocery store or pharmacy, there are at least two aisles stocked with nothing but meal-replacement shakes.
One of the aisles is targeted at young people, with marketing themes around bodybuilding or triathlon training. The other aisle is targeted at senior citizens, with marketing themes around osteoporosis or longevity. There might be a third aisle, or a portion of one of the other two, targeting mostly women with themes of weight loss. However, it's pretty much the same stuff in the bottle on any aisle.
Soylent looks to be a online aisle, targeting the exact same stuff to tech-savvy hipsters, with themes of lifehacking and and classic sci-fi cinema.
I'm sure that your particular Brawndo is special because it has electrolytes, or whatever, but I don't understand why the underlying concept of a meal-replacement shake warrants so much coverage. This concept isn't the least bit novel.
You gave the reason yourself: The existing market is segmented, and none of those markets shouts 'average HN user'.
Compare the marketing/segmentation of the existing products:
Senior citizens: For old people / a worse replacement for regular meals / medical.
Women losing weight: I'm fat / unhealthy / a worse replacement for regular meals / temporary, once I've lost the weight I'll switch back.
Bodybuilders: DUDE, CHECK OUT MY LATS. I ALWAYS DO 10 x 10 DP SETS AND THEN SLAM DOWN A PROTEIN SHAKE. DUUUUUDE.
Soylent: For many people, on many occasions, food is a hassle, especially when trying to eat well. It allows one to enjoy the health benefits of a well balanced diet with less effort and cost.
Now which of these is going to attract, and which is going to repel, the stereotypical HN user?
Of course these are stereotypes, but this is marketing, and segmenting often uses stereotypes to push people into making different purchasing decisions: As an average HN user, I'm going to feel weird/wrong buying a women's weight loss shake, or a senior citizens medical food, or a gym expert's protein shake, but I'm going to feel great buying Soylent, because I fit into the marketing.
My point is that none of the existing products on the market market all these points:
* An equal replacement for food, instead of a worse substitute on one axis or another (at least nutritionally);
* An all the time replacement, not just for a specific purpose;
* Market direct to the consumer (this seems to be the issue with some of the replacements used in hospitals).
Now, whether Soylent actually meets these claims, or whether the stereotypes are actually relevant to the contents of the products themselves, is largely irrelevant at this point. This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else. (Personally, I'm rooting for Soylent)
Re the name, which a bunch of people who seriously fail to see why that name: because it is rebellious in exactly the way average HN users are suckers for.
> This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else.
Exactly, and here's another example: What's the difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero?
Answer: Diet Coke is popular with women, so some men won't drink it. Hence, introduce the more masculine Coke Zero, but basically the same thing. But make some tiny little tweaks to caffeine content and sweetness to create plausible deniability about it being identical.
The main difference is that most of those meal replacements lack many nutrients, that makes them useful as a replacement for a meal or two every now and then. Soylent is attempting to provide every single nutrient required by our bodies, thus making it a permanent replacement for food.
No you are wrong. MRP companies are just more careful regarding marketing. Taking a "failing is ok, we'll fix it later" approach to your own health is a terribly retarded approach. Especially because long term effects can take months and years to manifest (lack of nutrients).
For whatever reason, Soylent seems to trigger a visceral reaction in a lot of people.
Arguments like "but this product already exists" probably reflect more on the arguer than the product.
That said, I found the arguments urging caution around significant/unproven diet changes to be quite compelling. I'm intrigued by the idea and very interested in following the product, but I don't intend to be an early tester myself.
One of the aisles is targeted at young people, with marketing themes around bodybuilding or triathlon training. The other aisle is targeted at senior citizens, with marketing themes around osteoporosis or longevity. There might be a third aisle, or a portion of one of the other two, targeting mostly women with themes of weight loss. However, it's pretty much the same stuff in the bottle on any aisle.
Soylent looks to be a online aisle, targeting the exact same stuff to tech-savvy hipsters, with themes of lifehacking and and classic sci-fi cinema.
I'm sure that your particular Brawndo is special because it has electrolytes, or whatever, but I don't understand why the underlying concept of a meal-replacement shake warrants so much coverage. This concept isn't the least bit novel.