One of his examples is bad.
I'm pretty sure that the much publicized "different customers see different prices on Amazon" debacle was just a simple A/B test, and not some complex scheme along the lines of, "Joe can afford to pay more!"
I'm pretty sure that the much publicized "different customers see different prices on Amazon" debacle was just a simple A/B test, and not some complex scheme along the lines of, "Joe can afford to pay more!"
So you have a product that is priced like: Amazon.com: $14.99 with $5 shipping (free for Prime) 3rd Party: $12.99 with $3 shipping.
Amazon will show Prime members the first one, and non-Prime members the 2nd one.
But are you sure there's no evidence of what he references? He seems pretty explicit, and it seems a very odd conclusion w/no specific evidence: "prices on offer to different customers varying for the same product, presumably on the basis of the customer's willingness to pay more for goods in prior transactions."
Maybe someone has a real example though... I just remember the debunked ones.
[1] Ignoring the $75 annual fee for Prime, of course.
different merchant offerings
prime discounts
limited availability offers disappearing
the "chosen" offer changing over time
multiple detail pages for the same item with different merchant offersI am not ignorant of using them either, I used OSX and iOS for years and I say Android ICS is better, Ubuntu is better and new iterations of Windows certainly don't seem to be worse (although I have less data there).
People like to compare the latest OSX to Win95 or even XP (2001) but don't compare as often to the most recent offerings. There is a total intolerance to criticism. Android ICS has been said to be better than the latest iOS by multiple reviewers, so it's at least neck and neck with the last bit probably depending mainly on personal preference, but say that here and you will risk a downvote. In fact it's almost certain to get downvotes and they will only sometimes be balanced out but people appalled at the abuse of the voting system being used to just hammer someone who doesn't belong to the group.
But neck and neck is sufficient for my point, they don't have a monopoly on good design and they certainly aren't in some class of their own "luxury" above the normal products. They are just another computer company, as they always were. People who, in modern capitalism, have tied part of their egos and identities to the fate of one of the largest corporate legal entities in the world will no doubt be hurt by this.