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

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#51

Post by chrisfosterelli »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #33
TZubiri wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, when incorporating, "to make profit" is usually not part of the stated mission, usually it's something along the lines of "to make chess software"

Those missions are generally for employee alignment, recruiting, customer facing marketing. “Making money” doesn’t work for employees that don’t share ownership of the business and are paid at market rate (IOW as low as the market will bear)

Obviously money is important. We live in a capitalist world. It lets an org invest in future, greater service to its mission. But it's not WHY a business exists. It's just a measure. It's sort of like saying that you exist to breathe oxygen or pump blood. It's necessary and important, but suggesting that's your mission would be a little reductive.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#52

Post by bee_rider »

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?

The current stakeholders probably have an interest in the company not going out of business long term as well.

Anyway, what’s the level of evidence required to sue somebody for working against the interest of their shareholder? I’d expect it to be something along the lines of: the CEO knowingly and maliciously worked against their interest… I mean, we can’t have made being bad at your job illegal, right?

The market is pretty clever, so there is at least room to believe that any move that plausibly would help long-term company health should also help short-term stock prices, right?

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#53

Post by dpoloncsak »

remedan wrote: post #15

> It is the goal of every business to maximise profits. As a business, it is your responsibility to price your products in a way that will yield the most profit. This is how the article starts, and it might be somewhat off-topic, but I disagree. Plenty of businesses (at least privately held ones) have the goal of simply making enough for the owners to get by. Not to optimize for the absolute maximum. And why should t…

Many of those businesses eventually get acquired or crushed by the guys who do put profit over everything else.

Sure, Amazon made drivers piss in bottles. They also put killed (or atleast, put the final nail in the coffin) your local brick and mortar xyz store.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#54

Post by watwut »

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…

None of that makes it a scam. It makes it "more expensive".

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#55

Post by wahnfrieden »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #51
wahnfrieden wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those missions are generally for employee alignment, recruiting, customer facing marketing. “Making money” doesn’t work for employees that don’t share ownership of the business and are paid at market rate (IOW as low as the market will bear)

Obviously money is important. We live in a capitalist world. It lets an org invest in future, greater service to its mission. But it's not WHY a business exists. It's just a measure. It's sort of like saying that you exist to breathe oxygen or pump blood. It's necessary and important, but suggesting that's your mission would be a little reductive.

There’s a reason boards study financials and hide them from employees

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#56

Post by hyperhopper »

BobAliceInATree wrote: post #44
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…

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.

So the hecklers selling overpriced trinkets at every major tourist attraction in Europe or the US aren't scams? I disagree.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#57

Post by wongarsu »

lesuorac wrote: post #23
briandoll wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, the leadership team has a fiduciary responsibility to their investors. Privately held lifestyle businesses don't, at least not as much.

But there's no concrete definition of fiduciary! One can easily argue that by having flat pricing they're doing their fiduciary responsibility because it's setting the company up to succeed in the long run through strong consumer trust. One can argue that by having regional pricing they're doing their fiduciary responsibility because it's setting the company up to succeed by having success in more markets. The takeaw…

And the VC world is full of examples where shareholder want the company to prioritize marketshare or riding certain hypes or other activities that increase company valuation within the shareholder's investment horizon. In most VC funded startups maximizing revenue would be a violation of your fiduciary duty

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#58

Post by qzx_pierri »

teiferer wrote: post #38
Y_Y wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Idk man, your definition of "scam" seems different from other people's. "Old rope"? Is every non-EV a scam because it's "old rope"? Are people with cable TV subscriptions victims of scams because cable is "old rope"? There is a difference between "in my opinion, there is no value" and "scam". Most items in the grocery store around the corner I don't buy, because they don't have value to me. But the store is not a sca…

It seems that people who express such strong, polarizing opinions often do so because they enjoy engaging in debate. If their goal were simply to communicate their perspective without confrontation, they could present their views in a more measured and considerate way.

With that in mind, it might be more effective to share your logical arguments with someone who is genuinely open to hearing them, rather than with someone who appears committed to their position.

Just my 2 cents.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#59

Post by fluoridation »

lesuorac wrote: post #50
fluoridation wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Why are they different shareholders?

My question is about those cases when they're different.

>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.

The future is uncertain. The future company may be in worse health even with this forward-thinking decision, for any number of reasons. One in the bag is worth two in the bush and all that. So as long as we consider fiduciary duty a valid priority, how can we argue against immediate extraction of value over all other concerns?

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#60

Post by fluoridation »

bee_rider wrote: post #52
fluoridation wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The current stakeholders probably have an interest in the company not going out of business long term as well. Anyway, what’s the level of evidence required to sue somebody for working against the interest of their shareholder? I’d expect it to be something along the lines of: the CEO knowingly and maliciously worked against their interest… I mean, we can’t have made being bad at your job illegal, right? The market i…

>The market is pretty clever, so there is at least room to believe that any move that plausibly would help long-term company health should also help short-term stock prices, right?

I don't know about that. Are the most valuable companies those planning for sustainable returns over many decades? It seems to me the stock market is just a hype machine where anything past 5 years just doesn't exist, and CEOs operate accordingly.

Post reply on HN