Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

mobeigi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#41

Post by teiferer »

heap_perms wrote: post #39
teiferer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chess.com is a scam anyway Is it? How so? Just because you like an alternative better doesn't make it a scam. Sure they are turning a profit. But when you pay, you get more features. You don't need to pay if you don't want those features or want them somewhere else. And they use some money to sponsor events. Titled Tuesday is a staple in the worldwide chess community and most top players play there. Not really yo m…

Chess.com is fundamentally a scam operation masquerading as a premium service. They've built an empire by paywalking features that should be free - and ARE free elsewhere. Lichess proves every single day that unlimited puzzles, deep analysis, opening exploration, and even advanced features like studies and cloud analysis don't need to cost a dime. They're open-source, ad-free, and completely transparent about their f…

So like Windows then? Cause a free alternative exists?

Or farmers markets? Cause you can just grow all those crops for free yourself.

Or carpenters? Just get some tools, do your home renovations for free.

Or sex workers? Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.

Oh, they are differences between the free and the pay options? The occupy different niches in the marketplace? You don't say. Maybe they are not scams after all, just cater to different tastes.

(I also prefer lichess over chess.com but that doesn't mean I think this is a reasonable argument.)

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#42

Post by fluoridation »

hnthrowaway121 wrote: post #37
fluoridation wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Shareholder primacy" implies that at any time a decision needs to be made that puts the interests of shareholders against those of anyone else, the shareholders' should take priority. Since pricing affects revenue and revenue affects shareholders in some way, pricing should be structured such that revenue is maximized. So it doesn't need to be the maximum price possible, but it does need to be whatever price yields…

But surely it’s debatable whether increased short term revenue benefiting shareholders this year is better or worse than longer term plays with the chance of higher returns later, or that avoiding some sources of revenue for ethical reasons protects the brand’s reputation and image in the market.

If a decision puts at odds the interests of two different sets of shareholders at two different points in time, why should the interests of the more distant one be given priority over those of the current one?

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#43

Post by heap_perms »

teiferer wrote: post #41
heap_perms wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess.com is fundamentally a scam operation masquerading as a premium service. They've built an empire by paywalking features that should be free - and ARE free elsewhere. Lichess proves every single day that unlimited puzzles, deep analysis, opening exploration, and even advanced features like studies and cloud analysis don't need to cost a dime. They're open-source, ad-free, and completely transparent about their f…

So like Windows then? Cause a free alternative exists? Or farmers markets? Cause you can just grow all those crops for free yourself. Or carpenters? Just get some tools, do your home renovations for free. Or sex workers? Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free. Oh, they are differences between the free and the pay options? The occupy different niches in the marketplace? You don't say. Maybe they are not sc…

A better analogy: imagine if someone built a public water fountain, then chess.com set up next to it selling the exact same water for $100/year while limiting the public fountain to 1 cup per day through lobbying. Then they sponsored all the popular hydration influencers to only drink their bottled water on camera.

> Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.

Not at the same convenience, can you ;) So they are selling convenience. Chess.com isn't selling convenience - both platforms are websites you access identically. They're not offering portability or solving a distribution problem. They're artificially limiting a digital service that costs them essentially nothing to provide unlimited access to.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#44

Post by BobAliceInATree »

heap_perms wrote: post #39
teiferer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chess.com is a scam anyway Is it? How so? Just because you like an alternative better doesn't make it a scam. Sure they are turning a profit. But when you pay, you get more features. You don't need to pay if you don't want those features or want them somewhere else. And they use some money to sponsor events. Titled Tuesday is a staple in the worldwide chess community and most top players play there. Not really yo m…

Chess.com is fundamentally a scam operation masquerading as a premium service. They've built an empire by paywalking features that should be free - and ARE free elsewhere. Lichess proves every single day that unlimited puzzles, deep analysis, opening exploration, and even advanced features like studies and cloud analysis don't need to cost a dime. They're open-source, ad-free, and completely transparent about their f…

That's still not a scam. They tell you what you're paying for. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. There's no deception going on.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#45

Post by graybeardhacker »

schnitzelstoat wrote: post #2

It seems like the US has really cheap pricing compared to Western Europe, especially when you consider the poorer countries such as Portugal, Italy, Spain etc. I wonder if they can get away charging higher prices in these countries because chess is more popular there.

[flagged]

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#46

Post by monkey_monkey »

heap_perms wrote: post #43
teiferer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like Windows then? Cause a free alternative exists? Or farmers markets? Cause you can just grow all those crops for free yourself. Or carpenters? Just get some tools, do your home renovations for free. Or sex workers? Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free. Oh, they are differences between the free and the pay options? The occupy different niches in the marketplace? You don't say. Maybe they are not sc…

A better analogy: imagine if someone built a public water fountain, then chess.com set up next to it selling the exact same water for $100/year while limiting the public fountain to 1 cup per day through lobbying. Then they sponsored all the popular hydration influencers to only drink their bottled water on camera. > Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free. Not at the same convenience, can you ;) So they a…

How, specifically, are chess.com limiting anyone using lichess?

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#47

Post by bee_rider »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #31
realityfactchex wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's a myth, and a pervasive one. Decent description at [0]. Not only that, but people actually think they know that. Since people believe it, it's "real to them". IMO, this helps make it easier to go from "we're going to make the best widgets and be good, responsible, ethical corps" to "we will extract as much value as possible from customers, anything within the law is fair game, external consequences not bei…

Why is the idea of quality oriented “getting by” businesses popular here, but worker cooperatives generally scorned? A worker owned coop is more resilient to deciding to focus on quality and affordability than a business with investors and hierarchical ownership that can change (after a death or a sale etc)

Worker co-ops are scorned here? I think they just don’t come up much due to the nature of the industry.

Like all [citation needed] nerds I consumed a ridiculous amount of fantasy fiction growing up, and think programming is as close to magic as we’ll ever get in the real world. If somebody made a “Programmers Guild” in the style of a wizard’s guild, who among us wouldn’t join such a thing?

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#48

Post by [deleted] »

fluoridation wrote: post #42
hnthrowaway121 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely it’s debatable whether increased short term revenue benefiting shareholders this year is better or worse than longer term plays with the chance of higher returns later, or that avoiding some sources of revenue for ethical reasons protects the brand’s reputation and image in the market.

If a decision puts at odds the interests of two different sets of shareholders at two different points in time, why should the interests of the more distant one be given priority over those of the current one?

[deleted]

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#49

Post by eCa »

andoando wrote: post #28
emptybits wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Related: the widely held belief that a corporation's singular goal is to maximize shareholder value.

It might not be the case legally, but it is the sole metric that stockholders value.

It’s not. Plenty of investors might skip investing in arms, petro, cigarettes or betting for moral reasons, even though it might yield more money.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#50

Post by lesuorac »

fluoridation wrote: post #42
hnthrowaway121 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely it’s debatable whether increased short term revenue benefiting shareholders this year is better or worse than longer term plays with the chance of higher returns later, or that avoiding some sources of revenue for ethical reasons protects the brand’s reputation and image in the market.

If a decision puts at odds the interests of two different sets of shareholders at two different points in time, why should the interests of the more distant one be given priority over those of the current one?

Why are they different shareholders?

Trivially, the company can expect that it's current shareholders will hold the stock for a long time and so there's no reason to "juice" the current price at the cost of future price.

But also simply, making long term plans is easily arguable to be in fiduciary duty as a future shareholder would be willing to pay more to the current shareholder for a company in good health.

Post reply on HN