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

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#31

Post by wahnfrieden »

realityfactchex wrote: post #30
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…

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)

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#32

Post by JanNash »

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)

Valid inquiry!

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#33

Post by wahnfrieden »

TZubiri wrote: post #22
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…

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)

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#34

Post by fluoridation »

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…

"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 the greatest revenue.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#35

Post by paxys »

haunter wrote: post #29

Steam used to have (until 2016) a two tier regonal pricing in the EU (EU1 and EU2) but they had to stop it because it was discrimination that people in Sweden paid more for a game than people in Bulgaria. Now everyone in the EU pays the same as people in Sweden. And of course games haven't become cheaper either

There would be similar pushback if Steam started selling games for cheaper in Greenville, Alabama vs New York City. Plenty of regions in the USA have way worse economic disparity than the two you have highlighted. The point of being a single economic/political bloc is to be able to negotiate collectively and work towards a balance.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#36

Post by jszymborski »

fluoridation wrote: post #34
lesuorac wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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…

Right, but destroying customer trust will also destroy shareholder interests

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#37

Post by hnthrowaway121 »

fluoridation wrote: post #34
lesuorac wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#38

Post by teiferer »

Y_Y wrote: post #26
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…

[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 scam. There is an element of directed deception and lying missing, in my grocery store and chess.com as well. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

Re: Chess.com regional pricing: A case study

#39

Post by heap_perms »

teiferer wrote: post #9
Y_Y wrote: post #6

Chess.com is a scam anyway. Rather than comparing the price of Norwegian Chess.cok to Nigerian Chess.con you should be comparing to lichess.org. They have a better app and plenty of people to play with, without any paywalling or marketing or rent-seeking.

> 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 finances.
Post reply on HN