6 ms·

> To everyone else, this just looks like mustachio-twirling, cackling evil and unfathomable greed from a company that’s already the world’s richest and sitting

> To everyone else, this just looks like mustachio-twirling, cackling evil and unfathomable greed from a company that’s already the world’s richest and sitting on a mountainous pile of cash. What’s really interesting to me is that moves like this are the embodiment of the “charge more” mantra that is (or at least was) extremely popular on Hacker News for years. For a long time it felt like every HN thread about pricing or salary negotiation was full of people insisting that you needed to “charge more” in every conceivable situation. If you made a thing that was producing a lot of money for your clients, you needed to “charge more”! If your customers weren’t complaining and leaving, you needed to “charge more”! Yet every time a company actually does a “charge more” type move, HN reaches for the pitchforks. It’s interesting to see how clear-cut this dichotomy is depending on who the reader thinks is being charged more.

nickff 5y ago
HN is full of these cognitive dissonances; another example is the generally pro-immigration stance when it comes to low-wage workers, which is contrasted with the anti-tech immigration stance. I used to think it was different groups of people on different threads, but I have come to believe that many maintain diametrically opposed views.
- granshaw 5y ago
  “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”
- syshum 5y ago
  There could be solid position there, as I have argued in the manner you have stated here. "Tech Immigration" is largely H1B immigration is prefectly valid to be opposed to H1B while being pro immigration. H1B is a predatory program designed to lower wages and put immigrants in a terrible stop when in comes to the immigration status, i.e the employer holds not only their income, but their ability to remain in the nation in the palm of their hands. This created a toxic and coercive relationship with the employer. At the same time a correction to this program, and a correction to the low skilled workers is simply allowing more open immigration, if you want to come here to work you should be able to.
  - nickff 5y ago
    The 'open borders' position you describe would definitely be a consistent one, but it's not compatible with most of the HN arguments against tech immigrants. Most HN anti-H1B posts talk about how they depress wages, and it seems likely that a significant increase in software developer immigrants would depress wages even more than the H1B status quo.
    - curious_cat_163 5y ago
      The alternative to H1-B is not open borders… The alternative is a sane program that is detached from your employer’s whims and provides you some stability and control. As of this writing, that program in the US is called a green card. But don’t get me started on how hard that is get.
      - syshum 5y ago
        >>not open borders… I want to be clear no where did I say anything about "open borders", I said "more open immigration" I do believe in some controls on immigration, security controls as an example. However I also believe it should be vastly easier than it is today, order of magnitude more open than it is today.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Of course I agree with my peer comment, that the alternative to an H-1B isn't open borders. There are a number of other countries with much more reasonable immigration programs - Canada and Australia for instance - which prioritize immigration of individuals that would provide the most value for the labor market by assigning skills and attributes a point value. It's important to separate out the quantity of immigration, what they do/where they go, and how they're restricted in the process. With that in mind, consider also that 'and according to a 2018 study by the National Foundation for American Policy, immigrants founded or cofounded 55% of the United States' billion-dollar companies.' [1] It's not a zero-sum game, and stapling would-be founders to companies they would rather not work at for decades (H-1B for Indian born folks) hoping to get the freedom to found the next unicorn is quite a waste of time, talent and their risk-on years. As an aside, it's interesting that folks want high wages, high disposable income, low inequality, low prices and low inflation all at the same time. I strongly suspect that these are fundamentally incompatible goals. Feels like, at most, a pick-two kind of thing. [1] https://hbr.org/2021/08/research-why-immigrants-are-more-likely-to-become-entrepreneurs https://hbr.org/2021/08/research-why-immigrants-are-more-lik...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dahdum 5y ago
  > generally pro-immigration stance when it comes to low-wage workers, which is contrasted with the anti-tech immigration stance I have the opposite view and don't believe they are diametrically opposed. I see many legitimate reasons to cap unskilled immigration while seeing virtually no good reasons to cap skilled.
- guelo 5y ago
  HN is thousands of people.
ramphastidae 5y ago
Agreed. HN cheers in the name of disruption and competition when rideshare apps gouge taxi drivers and when delivery apps gouge restaurants and couriers. But when it’s developers being gouged …
- FpUser 5y ago
  Not specific to developers. It goes like this: It's a recession when my neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when I lose mine.
lhorie 5y ago
For startups, the advice is specifically given in the context that cheap customers are often "high maintenance", whereas deep-pocketed customers w/ accounts payable budgets provide more reliable income streams with less drama.
scoot 5y ago
> the “charge more” mantra that is (or at least was) extremely popular on Hacker News You'll need to ask patio11 for comment. He might have had some disciples regurgitating it, but he's ultimately responsible for this viewpoint. (Not saying I entirely disagree...)
- PebblesRox 5y ago
  I believe this is the original post: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-to-charge-more/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-... And here's a comment with more; it has definitely been a theme: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828115
znpy 5y ago
You can do something good, bring it to an extreme exaggeration and turn it into something bad, you know?
howdydoo 5y ago
I think the difference is the rent-seeking. Imagine a web developer gets hired to build a landing page for a product. Yes please, charge twice as much for your work, sure. But say they tried to charge an ongoing 30% of all future revenue for that product. Do you think HN would be behind that?
- laurent123456 5y ago
  Exactly, if a small company decides to charge more for their work, it's a risk they take, and their customers might just decide to go elsewhere. But if tomorrow Apple decides you owe them more, what are you going to do? Not stay on the Apple Store? I don't think so.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"But if tomorrow Apple decides you owe them more, what are you going to do? Not stay on the Apple Store? I don't think so." Actually many people do just fine without Apple.
    - throwaway1777 5y ago
      Actually it’s insane to suggest Uber and Lyft could just abandon their iOS userbase.
      - fendy3002 5y ago
        It seems like that because there aren't many alternative beside iOS and android, and iOS market share is big. However if many players decide to get out from Apple ecosystem, it'll be Apple that'll change stance here.
        scrose 5y ago
        That’s a nice dream, but it’s highly unlikely individual companies that are already dominating a market would leave billions of dollars on the table to make a statement
cblconfederate 5y ago
Are we supposed to be rooting for monopolies now? Of course not. But you are right, HN used to be about the little David entrepreneur. Since ~2012 it's all about "fuck making a startup and go work for The Man"
eloisius 5y ago
HN isn’t one entity with a set of consistent beliefs.
notdemo88 5y ago
trustfundbaby 5y ago
No Dichotomy there, its one thing to 'charge more' for your services, its another thing to ask for 30% of your client's SaaS subscription revenue, because you built them a website.
gknoy 5y ago
The "charge more" advice I've seen, e.g. from patio11, seems to be aimed at charging _new clients_ or for _new contracts_, and in almost all cases has the caveat that one should almost never up-charge existing clients for the same service that they already have. You can add a new higher-price service tier, or grandfather them in _forever_ at the original price, etc, or quote them a larger price for the next consultation ("My fee is now X"), but in every case they have the option to walk away.
darksaints 5y ago
The only thing that is interesting to me is that you somehow have no idea how to mentally differentiate between a solo developer trying to find a way to be successful on their own, and the world's biggest company with cash reserves large enough to purchase entire countries. It's almost as if advice is naturally context dependent!
- simonh 5y ago
  What shouldn’t be context dependent, in that way at least, is the law. It should apply equally to everyone and each company regardless of how successful they are.
- adoxyz 5y ago
  Apple didn't become to worlds biggest company with cash reserves large enough to purchase entire countries by missing out on opportunities to generate additional revenue. Apple, much like the solo developer, is looking out for its best interests and what will help it continue to grow.
mikl 5y ago
Everything can be taken to unhealthy extremes. It’s one thing to “charge more”, when people can actually take their business elsewhere. It’s a different thing entirely when you’re the sole gatekeeper between hundreds of millions of customers and anyone wanting to sell them apps and digital services. It might not qualify as monopoly in the legal sense, but you’re still being a bully, abusing a position of power in the market.
zmix 5y ago
I wonder how many of these "Execs" are Libertarians, who oppose any form of tax.
ynx 5y ago
> Yet every time a company actually does a “charge more” type move "Charge your customer more for your work" is VERY meaningfully different from "Charge someone else's customer more for someone else's work, because you own the storefront for someone else's business". Sure, building the storefront is hard and high leverage. But figuring out the moral answer to "who reaps the rewards" is an entirely different journey.
- throwaway1777 5y ago
  I fail to see how it’s different. Uber is the one paying this cost not the end customer. Sure they may pass the cost on, but they also would pass the cost on if any other layer of their stack started charging more.
  - spartanatreyu 5y ago
    The difference is Uber has a choice of different stacks for everything except for app publishing. Apple in that regard is holding them hostage.
    - throwaway1777 5y ago
      Much different point than the other comment was making. As far as their choice in using Apple’s platform I don’t disagree that it’s not really a choice and it’s potentially a problem.
    - zeckalpha 5y ago
      Web?
      - lwansbrough 5y ago
        Apple intentionally limits the capabilities of its web browser to keep it from being competitive with its native platform, and I’m sure there’s an email out there that says as much explicitly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
random314 5y ago
Context matters. Nobody here would complain about Apple charging more for an iPhone or iPad. There is a difference between a pricey product and a high taxes.
canadaduane 5y ago
Groups tend to look homogeneous from a distance until you zoom in like this. And when you find a dichotomy, it isn't necessarily that the group is a hypocritical entity, it's that it consists of sub-groups with differing opinions.
- mistermann 5y ago
  It's true that it isn't necessarily hypocritical at the detail level, but the question remains: to what degree is it actually like that at the detail level?
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Yet every time a company actually does a “charge more” type move, HN reaches for the pitchforks. This sort of cognitive dissonance is pretty par for the course for communities like this.
zzyzxd 5y ago
Charging less sometimes can give you interesting advantages. For instance, Xiaomi effectively crushes their competitors by purposely cutting their profit margin[1], such that: - If you are to build a product with similar quality to Xiaomi's, it has to be priced higher than Xiaom's, because unless your production/sales volume is on par with Xiaomi, your production cost is very likely higher than Xiaomi's. Customers will prefer Xiaomi's product because it is cheaper. - If you cut down production cost by bringing down quality, you might be able to price the product in Xiaomi's price range. But customers will still prefer Xiaomi because it has better quality for the same price range. 1: https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/11/28/xiaomi-ceo-says-that-gross-porift-margin-of-just-8-9-makes-mi-phones-so-competitive/ https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/11/28/xiaomi-ceo-says-that-g...

nickff 5y ago

HN is full of these cognitive dissonances; another example is the generally pro-immigration stance when it comes to low-wage workers, which is contrasted with the anti-tech immigration stance. I used to think it was different groups of people on different threads, but I have come to believe that many maintain diametrically opposed views.

granshaw 5y ago
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”
syshum 5y ago
There could be solid position there, as I have argued in the manner you have stated here. "Tech Immigration" is largely H1B immigration is prefectly valid to be opposed to H1B while being pro immigration. H1B is a predatory program designed to lower wages and put immigrants in a terrible stop when in comes to the immigration status, i.e the employer holds not only their income, but their ability to remain in the nation in the palm of their hands. This created a toxic and coercive relationship with the employer. At the same time a correction to this program, and a correction to the low skilled workers is simply allowing more open immigration, if you want to come here to work you should be able to.
- nickff 5y ago
  The 'open borders' position you describe would definitely be a consistent one, but it's not compatible with most of the HN arguments against tech immigrants. Most HN anti-H1B posts talk about how they depress wages, and it seems likely that a significant increase in software developer immigrants would depress wages even more than the H1B status quo.
  - curious_cat_163 5y ago
    The alternative to H1-B is not open borders… The alternative is a sane program that is detached from your employer’s whims and provides you some stability and control. As of this writing, that program in the US is called a green card. But don’t get me started on how hard that is get.
    - syshum 5y ago
      >>not open borders… I want to be clear no where did I say anything about "open borders", I said "more open immigration" I do believe in some controls on immigration, security controls as an example. However I also believe it should be vastly easier than it is today, order of magnitude more open than it is today.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Of course I agree with my peer comment, that the alternative to an H-1B isn't open borders. There are a number of other countries with much more reasonable immigration programs - Canada and Australia for instance - which prioritize immigration of individuals that would provide the most value for the labor market by assigning skills and attributes a point value. It's important to separate out the quantity of immigration, what they do/where they go, and how they're restricted in the process. With that in mind, consider also that 'and according to a 2018 study by the National Foundation for American Policy, immigrants founded or cofounded 55% of the United States' billion-dollar companies.' [1] It's not a zero-sum game, and stapling would-be founders to companies they would rather not work at for decades (H-1B for Indian born folks) hoping to get the freedom to found the next unicorn is quite a waste of time, talent and their risk-on years. As an aside, it's interesting that folks want high wages, high disposable income, low inequality, low prices and low inflation all at the same time. I strongly suspect that these are fundamentally incompatible goals. Feels like, at most, a pick-two kind of thing. [1] https://hbr.org/2021/08/research-why-immigrants-are-more-likely-to-become-entrepreneurs https://hbr.org/2021/08/research-why-immigrants-are-more-lik...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dahdum 5y ago
> generally pro-immigration stance when it comes to low-wage workers, which is contrasted with the anti-tech immigration stance I have the opposite view and don't believe they are diametrically opposed. I see many legitimate reasons to cap unskilled immigration while seeing virtually no good reasons to cap skilled.
guelo 5y ago
HN is thousands of people.

ramphastidae 5y ago

Agreed. HN cheers in the name of disruption and competition when rideshare apps gouge taxi drivers and when delivery apps gouge restaurants and couriers. But when it’s developers being gouged …

FpUser 5y ago
Not specific to developers. It goes like this: It's a recession when my neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when I lose mine.

lhorie 5y ago

For startups, the advice is specifically given in the context that cheap customers are often "high maintenance", whereas deep-pocketed customers w/ accounts payable budgets provide more reliable income streams with less drama.

scoot 5y ago

> the “charge more” mantra that is (or at least was) extremely popular on Hacker News You'll need to ask patio11 for comment. He might have had some disciples regurgitating it, but he's ultimately responsible for this viewpoint. (Not saying I entirely disagree...)

PebblesRox 5y ago
I believe this is the original post: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-to-charge-more/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-... And here's a comment with more; it has definitely been a theme: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828115

znpy 5y ago

You can do something good, bring it to an extreme exaggeration and turn it into something bad, you know?

howdydoo 5y ago

I think the difference is the rent-seeking. Imagine a web developer gets hired to build a landing page for a product. Yes please, charge twice as much for your work, sure. But say they tried to charge an ongoing 30% of all future revenue for that product. Do you think HN would be behind that?

laurent123456 5y ago
Exactly, if a small company decides to charge more for their work, it's a risk they take, and their customers might just decide to go elsewhere. But if tomorrow Apple decides you owe them more, what are you going to do? Not stay on the Apple Store? I don't think so.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"But if tomorrow Apple decides you owe them more, what are you going to do? Not stay on the Apple Store? I don't think so." Actually many people do just fine without Apple.
  - throwaway1777 5y ago
    Actually it’s insane to suggest Uber and Lyft could just abandon their iOS userbase.
    - fendy3002 5y ago
      It seems like that because there aren't many alternative beside iOS and android, and iOS market share is big. However if many players decide to get out from Apple ecosystem, it'll be Apple that'll change stance here.
      - scrose 5y ago
        That’s a nice dream, but it’s highly unlikely individual companies that are already dominating a market would leave billions of dollars on the table to make a statement

cblconfederate 5y ago

Are we supposed to be rooting for monopolies now? Of course not. But you are right, HN used to be about the little David entrepreneur. Since ~2012 it's all about "fuck making a startup and go work for The Man"

eloisius 5y ago

HN isn’t one entity with a set of consistent beliefs.

notdemo88 5y ago

trustfundbaby 5y ago

No Dichotomy there, its one thing to 'charge more' for your services, its another thing to ask for 30% of your client's SaaS subscription revenue, because you built them a website.

gknoy 5y ago

The "charge more" advice I've seen, e.g. from patio11, seems to be aimed at charging _new clients_ or for _new contracts_, and in almost all cases has the caveat that one should almost never up-charge existing clients for the same service that they already have. You can add a new higher-price service tier, or grandfather them in _forever_ at the original price, etc, or quote them a larger price for the next consultation ("My fee is now X"), but in every case they have the option to walk away.

darksaints 5y ago

The only thing that is interesting to me is that you somehow have no idea how to mentally differentiate between a solo developer trying to find a way to be successful on their own, and the world's biggest company with cash reserves large enough to purchase entire countries. It's almost as if advice is naturally context dependent!

simonh 5y ago
What shouldn’t be context dependent, in that way at least, is the law. It should apply equally to everyone and each company regardless of how successful they are.
adoxyz 5y ago
Apple didn't become to worlds biggest company with cash reserves large enough to purchase entire countries by missing out on opportunities to generate additional revenue. Apple, much like the solo developer, is looking out for its best interests and what will help it continue to grow.

mikl 5y ago

Everything can be taken to unhealthy extremes. It’s one thing to “charge more”, when people can actually take their business elsewhere. It’s a different thing entirely when you’re the sole gatekeeper between hundreds of millions of customers and anyone wanting to sell them apps and digital services. It might not qualify as monopoly in the legal sense, but you’re still being a bully, abusing a position of power in the market.

zmix 5y ago

I wonder how many of these "Execs" are Libertarians, who oppose any form of tax.

ynx 5y ago

> Yet every time a company actually does a “charge more” type move "Charge your customer more for your work" is VERY meaningfully different from "Charge someone else's customer more for someone else's work, because you own the storefront for someone else's business". Sure, building the storefront is hard and high leverage. But figuring out the moral answer to "who reaps the rewards" is an entirely different journey.

throwaway1777 5y ago
I fail to see how it’s different. Uber is the one paying this cost not the end customer. Sure they may pass the cost on, but they also would pass the cost on if any other layer of their stack started charging more.
- spartanatreyu 5y ago
  The difference is Uber has a choice of different stacks for everything except for app publishing. Apple in that regard is holding them hostage.
  - throwaway1777 5y ago
    Much different point than the other comment was making. As far as their choice in using Apple’s platform I don’t disagree that it’s not really a choice and it’s potentially a problem.
  - zeckalpha 5y ago
    Web?
    - lwansbrough 5y ago
      Apple intentionally limits the capabilities of its web browser to keep it from being competitive with its native platform, and I’m sure there’s an email out there that says as much explicitly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

random314 5y ago

Context matters. Nobody here would complain about Apple charging more for an iPhone or iPad. There is a difference between a pricey product and a high taxes.

canadaduane 5y ago

Groups tend to look homogeneous from a distance until you zoom in like this. And when you find a dichotomy, it isn't necessarily that the group is a hypocritical entity, it's that it consists of sub-groups with differing opinions.

mistermann 5y ago
It's true that it isn't necessarily hypocritical at the detail level, but the question remains: to what degree is it actually like that at the detail level?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>Yet every time a company actually does a “charge more” type move, HN reaches for the pitchforks. This sort of cognitive dissonance is pretty par for the course for communities like this.

zzyzxd 5y ago

Charging less sometimes can give you interesting advantages. For instance, Xiaomi effectively crushes their competitors by purposely cutting their profit margin[1], such that: - If you are to build a product with similar quality to Xiaomi's, it has to be priced higher than Xiaom's, because unless your production/sales volume is on par with Xiaomi, your production cost is very likely higher than Xiaomi's. Customers will prefer Xiaomi's product because it is cheaper. - If you cut down production cost by bringing down quality, you might be able to price the product in Xiaomi's price range. But customers will still prefer Xiaomi because it has better quality for the same price range. 1: https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/11/28/xiaomi-ceo-says-that-gross-porift-margin-of-just-8-9-makes-mi-phones-so-competitive/ https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/11/28/xiaomi-ceo-says-that-g...