3 ms·

What if the alternative is to not offer the cheaper product at all. Would that be preferable? It does seem like a weird system.

• romwell 7y ago
  >What if the alternative is to not offer the cheaper product at all. The alternative that's been around for centuries is called "having a sale". Say, you make 1000 units of something. Each unit costs X to make. You need to make Y profit per unit to sustain your business. The bad news is, not everyone wants to pay X+Y. The good news: some are willing to pay more. The supply-demand curve thing. So what you can do is: sell 500 units at X+2Y. Then have limited-time sales throughout <time period> at X+0.1Y. This way, you never lose money on a sale, and you make the money you wanted to make. The customers that want your product here and now* pay for that premium. The customers that need your product will pay up as well, as sales aren't a guaranteed thing. And the rest will wait. With smart hardware, someone had a genius idea: have the same breakdown in prices, but also cripple the products you sell at a lower price. Make your money faster by selling at both price points simultaneously. Nothing* wrong with trying to do that (from the seller's side). Nothing wrong with being disgusted with the wasteful practice it and calling it out (from the customer's side). * aside from the waste aspect, repair aspect, customer hostility, artificially high margins probably being result of a monopoly/lock-in/supplier scarcity, and a plethora of other things.