Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra).

If it's not rent seeking, it's drip pricing, it's added-on sales tax, it's $0.99 instead of $1[0], it's the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition. I would always advocate: don't give them your business.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here. I know it's a lot easier said than done to avoid such ploys. Still, that is the strongest personal option. Avoid them like the plague and tell your friends and family why. If a business' current practices seem better than you remember, hold on to the memory; make them work to prove any marketed change of heart. (It may be hazardous to my health to hold my breath waiting for the $0.99 shit to stop.)

[0] There was a card shop (games shop, comic book store, that sort of thing) I went to as a kid. They priced stuff like $5 and it was actually $5 when I went to pay. 12-year-old me "didn't even know that was legal".

Isn't this all the same thing as what airlines did after 9/11? You pay the fare and get a seat. Want it to not be a middle seat? That's $50. Want to carry on a bag? That's $50. Want to check a bag? That's $50. Want to check out the lounge before you depart? That's $50. Want some WiFi? That's $50. Want a snack? That's $50. Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. (OK OK you can probably get WiFi and a snack for less than $50.)

Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. So why would any rational company not try to use this business model? Your AAA game gets to be $59.99 + $0.99 download, and your competitor's game is $60.00. Sort by price ascending makes you the top result, but you actually get $0.99 more money with each copy sold.

You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Consumers fall for it hook/line/sinker. Companies can't resist free money.

People don’t love that about the airlines. People hate it.

… but they like saving money more than they hate it.

I don’t think that people -_love it_ or _fall for it_ per se. rather, people don’t have much of a choice but to accept it unless they can afford to fly private.

You can’t really fly and not take luggage with you, for example.

> Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare.

> Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying.

Nobody "loves" it. They just have to put up with it because even for people who know what they're doing with flight searches, the only way to dig into all that dark pattern shit is to have fifty browser tabs open comparing the fine details of different flights.

If it was possible to, say, compare all those up-charges up front using flight search tools, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people choosing the slightly more expensive tickets.

Google flights will let you input the number of bags you are checking/carrying on to produce a "final" price.

That still leaves out leg room, meal service, lounge access, and all the other things that somebody might want.

I mean, you do get to know airlines by reputation - generally speaking I expect Ryanair to do all the bullshit dark pattern nickel and diming and not expect it from national airlines like Lufthansa.

I think overall you overestimate the amount most people fly. Generally, many people fly very little or almost never. Sure, there's world travelers that know who are bad airlines, but knowing the 'secrets' to not having a bad flight is assuming a lot of the average occasional flight consumer.

And the people who fly a lot? Almost all of them are flying on business, on somebody else's money.

Which is also why the hotel where people stay when they're visiting friends has free wifi, and the hotel next to the convention center does not.

...Are you of the impression that people like this? People hate it. It's like, the one thing everyone complains about all the time when flying. How did you get to the conclusion that people like this about flights

Actions speak louder than words. People say they hate it. But they aren't upgrading to all-inclusive first class or full-fare economy tickets. They happily buy the cheapest flight, whine, and then do it all against the next time they take a vacation.

To some extent, this is quite rational. You're in pain for like 2 hours because the seat pitch is now 4 inches. But then you get off the flight and never think about it again. The fact that flights include things that people don't need to have just made air travel more accessible, though less fun.

Have you considered that most people can't afford to upgrade to first class? The choice is either deal with the shit seat or not go on vacation.

Of course. It being cheaper is why people like it. Same reason that games are free and offer DLC, or Mercedes offers a car that could go faster if you have extra money laying around this month.

I hate the nickel and diming but it does make things more accessible in general.

It would maybe make things more accessible if there were caps on corporate profits. As it stands, corporations have 0 obligation to pass those savings on to consumers.

A $60/month difference is not what's going to make or break someone buying a Mercedes. Flying economy is cheap enough that many people can do it, there is no right Mercedes subscription model that will get people into one of their cars.

That's exactly right. If they want $6000 dollars more for the car over the lifetime of the car, the $6000 being right there in the sticker price might dissuade some buyers. But if they say it's $60/month, now you're only looking at the sticker price, and the Mercedes is cheaper than the everything-included BMW, so you buy that instead. (Sorry, I don't know enough about cars to know if Mercedes vs. BMW is a comparison that people make. I never even got a driver's license.)

This additionally acts as a nice A/B test; you sell the same car and get data on whether or not people would pay $6000 more for it to be faster.

I reflexively hate this, but it seems so rational to me.

Just because somebody buys something, that doesn't mean they like it. I don't like my ISP. It's shit service at a ridiculous price. I pay for it because the glorious free market has failed to provide acceptable options. No ISPs provide good service for a reasonable price. Therefore, my choice is to pay for something I don't like, or not have Internet.

Every time a company finds a way to make the product worse but increase profits, they will do it, and all other companies will eventually have to do it in order to remain competitive. It's an inevitable force that is built into the so-called free market. Nearly every product available today is worse and/or more expensive than an otherwise comparable product 10 years ago.

Mark my words, bookmark this comment and come back in 10 years. If these subscriptions turn out to be profitable, then in 2033, every car manufacturer will have functionality locked behind monthly subscriptions. And people will buy them because they have no other choice besides not buying a car. There will be no way to vote with your wallet--you'll just have to abstain with your wallet.

Yeah, it's especially toxic to capitalism when tight oligopolies (like the car industry, telecoms, mobile phone OSs) develop. Barriers to entry are super high, so when one company does a customer-hostile move like this and makes money, the others know everyone else will follow suit too, so rather than advertise how they won't exploit you like the bad guys do, everyone just adopts or "improves on" the d*ck move. Think about it. Some car company was the first to do a Destination Fee. Some ISP invented the bandwidth cap. And somehow these became universal, because who would/could challenge the oligopoly?

Don't really love or hate, but am ok with it. If I'm flying something short, I'll buy the cheapest ticket possible, which are really cheap now. Longer flights I like being able to get more leg room w/o having to spring for first class.

There is a large group of people who only want the cheapest flight possible, then there is a decent sized group who want more than basic economy, but don't want to pay for first class. This is basic customer segmenting.

You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse.

Perhaps! But a big part of the problem is airlines have near monopolies on domestic routes. I want to fly non-stop to Charlotte, my only choice is American, I want to fly to Atlanta, my only choice is Delta, for the same price as a flight to Europe. Some monopoly enforcement, or laws requiring more airport diversity might fix this without micromanaging prices or services.

Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying.

“Complains about air pollution, but still breathes the air”, amirite? Or perhaps there’s another explanation for the dynamic. Because I can tell you that my game-buying habits have changed as a result of your parallel example.

People pay the fare and usually don't buy any extra. And the plane doesn't go any faster if all passengers paid an hypothetical Speed Improvement.

There's a big difference between something you rent and something you own.

You rent seats on planes. Some seats are more desirable than others, so you pay more to rent those. You rent access to their storage space. You rent access to their services. The seat doesn't come with food, so if you want the food they have on the plane, you buy that from them. If you don't, someone on the next flight will.

When you buy a car, ostensibly you own the car. It's your property. A company should not be able to disable features unless you pay them not to, indefinitely, on something you own.

The key here is that because the US government's antitrust division has been sitting on its hands for 40 years, there are now only 4 airlines in the US. This lack of competition means that all 4 can play this game (except Southwest, which has other problems) because there's not enough competition to stop it.

But there are more than 4 car companies. There's enough competition to stop this kind of horseshit, which is a fact Mary Barra seems not to recognize.

Seeing this as a problem with personal responsibility misses that the problem is structural. Culture as expressed through individual choices works great for many situations, but it does not fix broken dynamics.

Besides, if you want to apply that axe put it against the people making those decisions to conduct business in that fashion. If your first thought is that it doesn't make sense to because then that person will be outcompeted then consider that it makes even less sense to hold people with zero agency in that decision responsible.

I don’t feel personally responsible but recognize that I can take actions to avoid these things, at least in some cases. If I ever found a store (literally any kind) today that didn’t price almost everything at $X.99 they would have all of my business which they could support. However, I recognize that I’m just one person and ultimately these decisions primarily benefit me. That’s also why I advocate for it; the behavior can benefit those close to me if they happen to agree.

Indeed it is a systemic issue and I don’t claim to have a systemic solution. Even the personal solution is pretty shaky, considering the ubiquity of these practices. Oh well, it’s better than giving in.

I think I read more into your post than intended, specifically your suggestion to vote with your wallet. It is frequently stated in such a way as to be the end of the conversation - shut up and change your purchasing habits, essentially. You didnt put it that way, my bad.

No, it's absolutely rent-seeking in the Mercedes case. Your DLC analogy doesn't hold water: when you buy the game, you are paying for the core game. The DLC costs time, money, and resources for the game studio to produce, and you're buying that separately.

In the Mercedes case, they ship the car with the more-powerful motor already installed in it. The cost of it has been paid already. They just artificially limit it through software unless you pay extra for it.

At least in this case Mercedes is offering a one-time flat fee, which would at least be somewhat sorta vaguely like paying extra at the time of sale for a more-powerful engine rather than whatever is stock. Still kinda slimy, but at least not absolute highway robbery, like the subscription plan is.

I think you might want to give my comment another read. It doesn’t seem we disagree as much as you believe.

The problem is that capital intensive industries like car manufacturing (or airlines as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) tend to have low margins, high volume and high barrier to new entrants. This means unless you can convince a lot of the volume to boycott with you, minority purchasing decisions of people doing the math and taking a principled stance can’t really affect the behavior of the incumbents or attract new players. Then your choices quickly turn into not using the good or service _at all_ or engaging with the pricing scheme you find abhorrent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com