4 ms·

Indeed, what is the cheerios example supposed to show? I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. Tinder or Epic are free to discount boos

by graeme 6y ago

Indeed, what is the cheerios example supposed to show? I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. Tinder or Epic are free to discount boosts or in game purchases, and spotify can give free months. The cheerios example probably involves a fair bit of negotiation between manufacturer and retailer. Whereas apps can discount whenever they choose, without permission.

danShumway 6y ago
Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a promotion. It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts. But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee. From the same section: > Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic. Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly. It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.
- gowld 6y ago
  > having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." Because MRP (minimum resale price) is often illegal (bit it's complicated https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/manufacturer-imposed https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...) MAP (minimum advertised price) is more permitted, which is why Amazon often makes you put items in your cart to see the discounted price.
grawprog 6y ago
> I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. That's how it used to work at the grocery store I worked at. The flyers were prepared a couple weeks in advance, the sales matched up with every other store that ordered food from loblaws, it was ordered down from loblaws to the stores that carry the products they ship and sell what things would be on sale on any given week throughout all the stores. This is why superstores, extra foods, the independent grocers and super valus all have the same stuff on sale the same weeks. The only things the store decided to put on sale was clearance stuff getting close to the expiry date.
- graeme 6y ago
  Those are loblaws sales. The argument was instead talking about those little coupons you can clip out of cardboard in the boxes. So like you physically cut up the cheerios box and can get 50 cents off cheerios at participating retailers.

by graeme 6y ago

danShumway 6y ago

Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a promotion. It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts. But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee. From the same section: > Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic. Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly. It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.

gowld 6y ago
> having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." Because MRP (minimum resale price) is often illegal (bit it's complicated https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/manufacturer-imposed https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...) MAP (minimum advertised price) is more permitted, which is why Amazon often makes you put items in your cart to see the discounted price.

grawprog 6y ago

> I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. That's how it used to work at the grocery store I worked at. The flyers were prepared a couple weeks in advance, the sales matched up with every other store that ordered food from loblaws, it was ordered down from loblaws to the stores that carry the products they ship and sell what things would be on sale on any given week throughout all the stores. This is why superstores, extra foods, the independent grocers and super valus all have the same stuff on sale the same weeks. The only things the store decided to put on sale was clearance stuff getting close to the expiry date.

graeme 6y ago
Those are loblaws sales. The argument was instead talking about those little coupons you can clip out of cardboard in the boxes. So like you physically cut up the cheerios box and can get 50 cents off cheerios at participating retailers.