3 ms·
Because it's illegal? Because it wouldn't maximize profits?
by nh23423fefe 4y ago
Because it's illegal? Because it wouldn't maximize profits?
- kingbirdy 4y agoPrice fixing increases profits as long as nobody undercuts you, that's the whole point
- srcreigh 4y agoNot always. I for one am just not upgrading at all due to costs. It would be a lot better to make $500 profit for each of the 100k people buying your product than $1000 profit for each of the 20k buying.
- jimmygrapes 4y agoNot upgrading due to costs? Luckily for you, we have invented planned obsolescence to solve this problem!
- anothernewdude 4y agoI mean, you just push customers out of the market. I've still got the same 960 I've had for years, and that's when I bother to use my desktop, which isn't often anymore.
- klysm 4y agoIs _implicit_ collision illegal? I’m thinking in the game theory sense when there are two companies who look at the decision space of increasing, leaving the same, of decreasing prices. It seems pretty easy to reason about when there are two players and simultaneously likely that leaving the prices high would increase profit.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Is _implicit_ collision illegal? Probably not. https://www.winston.com/en/competition-corner/antitrust-101-tacit-collusion.html https://www.winston.com/en/competition-corner/antitrust-101-...
- klysm 4y agoThanks for the link! I should’ve used “tacit collusion” instead of “implicit” in my previous comments
- klysm 4y agoThis brings up the topic of algorithmic tacit collusion which is something I hadn’t considered before but seems likely to occur
- inthepipe 4y agoIt has occurred. See Real Page, which is currently being sued by the government.