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

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#61

Post by giancarlostoro »

bee_rider wrote: post #47
wahnfrieden wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> If somebody made a “Programmers Guild” in the style of a wizard’s guild, who among us wouldn’t join such a thing?

HN is the wizard's guild.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#63

Post by InsomniacL »

They priced me out of a subscription.

£15 a month in the UK for an online chess game is crazy.

I've paid for 3 months but this is my last.

I'm only interested in Game review, but there are about 50 other sub-categories on their site that i don't use.

Only their top tier of membership provides game review and to be honest it's not even that good.

The game review is about the top 'computer' move, not what a human should do, and not one at my elo or to advance my elo.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#64

Post by mattkrause »

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…

Yes! Dodge v. Ford is a tough one because Ford explicitly announced that he was using the company's money to advance his own philanthropic aim. That's essentially theft: it's the company's money, not his.

However, as long as management is running the company as a company (and not, say, the director's personal slush fund), the courts give them incredibly wide latitude. They're won't second-guess whether it was "correct" to prioritize long-term growth or short-term profit-taking, as long as either is vaguely in the company's interests.

A parallel case, Shlensky v. Wrigley, has absolutely bonkers facts. Wrigley wouldn't install electric lights at his ball field, clearly due to some...idiosyncratic...beliefs about how baseball "ought to be played." However, unlike Ford, Wrigley left open the possibility that this was also a business decision too: perhaps changing the neighborhood would drive people away, or the lights would cost too much to operate. Consequently, the court found in his favor even though one gets the sense they were not totally convinced it was a sensible business decision.

Longer thread with references and quotes here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#65

Post by wahnfrieden »

bee_rider wrote: post #47
wahnfrieden wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes they get criticized as communist idealism and without upside for people to start

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#66

Post by rahimnathwani »

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)

What are some examples of worker cooperatives that are successful due to their focus on quality and affordability?

What might I buy from them?

(The only worker cooperative I knowingly buy from now is a local bakery/pizza place.)

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#67

Post by mattkrause »

fluoridation wrote: post #59
lesuorac wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reas…

The timeline (short vs. long ) doesn't matter at all.

The current shareholders have chosen the management (e.g., by voting for the Board) and are consequently agreeing to follow their plan. If you don't like that plan, you have other remedies: sell your stock, run for a seat on the board, etc.

As you note, the future is uncertain, so courts don't want to be in the business of second-guessing facts and competencies.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#68

Post by chrisfosterelli »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #55
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The reasons are because it's their job to ensure the organization's future, and financials are the specifics of how the company plans to do that, and because providing financial information to more people than necessary increases the risk that it leaks to competitors and inside traders.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#69

Post by scott_w »

hyperhopper wrote: post #56
BobAliceInATree wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they're trying to force them on you, no, they're not. Them being annoying as fuck doesn't mean they're dishonest.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#70

Post by teiferer »

qzx_pierri wrote: post #58
teiferer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

Thanks for pointing that out. I've spent a little too much time today engaging in such debate on HN and should reconsider.
Post reply on HN