4 ms·

You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing

You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Adding laws increases the complexity to comply.

jtbayly 6y ago
The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.
- pokstad 6y ago
  The article says they put asterisks on the prices along with clarifications in the small text. That’s not being lied to, just annoying.
  - p49k 6y ago
    It’s death by a thousand cuts. There is no way a consumer can win and be able to make effective choices in this environment.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    I literally thought I knew what the prices were until I read this article. I saw the "from $699" and "knew" it meant the cheapest model (the mini) was $699. Turns out I was wrong. I was wrong because they mislead me. Knowing the truth matters for me both in purchasing decisions and in recommendations to others, which I do a lot of.
    - briandear 6y ago
      The problem is a lazy media. The headline becomes “$699.”
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        I don’t think so. I wasn’t looking at media. I was looking at Apple content. Is the lowest priced iPhone $699? No it isn’t. What exactly does “from $699” mean when the cheapest one is actually $729?
- tayo42 6y ago
  People think they have a lot more say with their insignificant purchases then they really do. Insignificant purchases by individuals can't sway how businesses run.
  - dtech 6y ago
    This is about as bad an argument as saying that voting is pointless because one individual vote is not going to change anything. Individual purchases summed up amount to a lot.
    - tayo42 6y ago
      If it was comparable we wouldn't need regulation to protect consumers. Voting is answering a direct question. Yes or no with direct results. Your purchase isn't like that, they're not votes. Business behavior is decided by what is more profitable. That also assumes there is a choice to be made. There's nothing you can do if all options behave the same way. Your vote doesn't matter if the two options you vote for are the same. Often not true for politics, frequently can be true when making purchases
idle_zealot 6y ago
> If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. This assumes that agents in the market are rational actors, which they are not. Even when deception becomes the norm enough fall for the lower advertised prices to make the tactic optimal, despite the tactic's negative impact on marks and savvier consumers' alike.
tchalla 6y ago
> If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Just because it happens, doesn't mean it is not a big deal.

jtbayly 6y ago

The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.

pokstad 6y ago
The article says they put asterisks on the prices along with clarifications in the small text. That’s not being lied to, just annoying.
- p49k 6y ago
  It’s death by a thousand cuts. There is no way a consumer can win and be able to make effective choices in this environment.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  I literally thought I knew what the prices were until I read this article. I saw the "from $699" and "knew" it meant the cheapest model (the mini) was $699. Turns out I was wrong. I was wrong because they mislead me. Knowing the truth matters for me both in purchasing decisions and in recommendations to others, which I do a lot of.
  - briandear 6y ago
    The problem is a lazy media. The headline becomes “$699.”
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      I don’t think so. I wasn’t looking at media. I was looking at Apple content. Is the lowest priced iPhone $699? No it isn’t. What exactly does “from $699” mean when the cheapest one is actually $729?
tayo42 6y ago
People think they have a lot more say with their insignificant purchases then they really do. Insignificant purchases by individuals can't sway how businesses run.
- dtech 6y ago
  This is about as bad an argument as saying that voting is pointless because one individual vote is not going to change anything. Individual purchases summed up amount to a lot.
  - tayo42 6y ago
    If it was comparable we wouldn't need regulation to protect consumers. Voting is answering a direct question. Yes or no with direct results. Your purchase isn't like that, they're not votes. Business behavior is decided by what is more profitable. That also assumes there is a choice to be made. There's nothing you can do if all options behave the same way. Your vote doesn't matter if the two options you vote for are the same. Often not true for politics, frequently can be true when making purchases

idle_zealot 6y ago

> If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. This assumes that agents in the market are rational actors, which they are not. Even when deception becomes the norm enough fall for the lower advertised prices to make the tactic optimal, despite the tactic's negative impact on marks and savvier consumers' alike.

tchalla 6y ago

> If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Just because it happens, doesn't mean it is not a big deal.