11–20 of 174 posts
Disclaimer: I think Tinder is a rent-extracting garbage app, BUT, philosophically speaking, why is dynamic pricing unfair? If the algorithm detects that based on your biography, location and usage patterns, you would keep using this service even if it charged you 5x as much, isn't that just the market becoming more efficient?
2. Even if it is the same service, what is the problem with Tinder charging some people an extra $20? This isn't an essential service in any way.
3. foundation.mozilla.org ? Why is the Mozilla foundation of all groups investing time into this sort of advocacy?
Disclaimer: I think Tinder is a rent-extracting garbage app, BUT, philosophically speaking, why is dynamic pricing unfair? If the algorithm detects that based on your biography, location and usage patterns, you would keep using this service even if it charged you 5x as much, isn't that just the market becoming more efficient?
> market becoming more efficient You mean a company becoming more efficient at extracting money from their un-informed customers. A company finding new ways to leverage their market power, position, and information asymmetry.
Note, the post this is a reply to originally said "You mean a company becoming more efficient at extracting money from customers".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> market becoming more efficient You mean a company becoming more efficient at extracting money from their un-informed customers. A company finding new ways to leverage their market power, position, and information asymmetry.
Why is that bad? That's how free markets work. Note, the post this is a reply to originally said "You mean a company becoming more efficient at extracting money from customers".
Tinder is basically 5/100 guys getting all the matches per 90/100 women.
I believe old OkCupid data (which has since been deleted from their blog) found exactly this. In short, males looking for females are very even in their rating of women along a bell curve. Females looking for males heavily skew towards the top 20% of males, while considering the bottom 80% "below average". Tinder, and every other dating app, absolutely take advantage of this deep truth of human psychology and milk th…
(I’m a FF fan but this seems off brand to me)
Disclaimer: I think Tinder is a rent-extracting garbage app, BUT, philosophically speaking, why is dynamic pricing unfair? If the algorithm detects that based on your biography, location and usage patterns, you would keep using this service even if it charged you 5x as much, isn't that just the market becoming more efficient?
Because I'm being charged 5x for the exact same service. Want more money from your wealthy customers? Offer more in return.
1. It isn't obvious to me that dating for older people is to be treated as the same service as dating for younger people. There are profound differences. Dating as a 20 year old female is a completely different situation to dating as a 40 year old of either gender. 2. Even if it is the same service, what is the problem with Tinder charging some people an extra $20? This isn't an essential service in any way. 3. found…
The predatory monetization scheme makes more sense in that context.
Not a Tinder user or investor, but this makes me curious. Why is it okay for insurance companies to sell me products with hyper-personalized pricing (often based on sex, age, and race), but it's not okay for Tinder or other tech companies to do so?
Personalized pricing for a digital service with a more-or-less constant cost-per-user doesn't make sense here (unless you want to maximize profits by unfairly discriminating against certain demographics).