Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We want low prices (that's a great thing), but we also don't want to lose options and competition in the future (that's a bad thing).

I think the idea you're getting at is an efficient price. Not too low to devastate competition, not too high to be unaffordable.

The idea of efficient prices ties up a lot of concepts, especially anti-trust concepts. You're really spot on. Consider though that there's a whole body of language that specifically outs Amazon and Google's behavior as plain anti-trust violations. E.g., Amazon bundling its book marketplace with a tablet sold below cost; Google bundling its search and advertising business on an operating system sold at inefficient cost (by sharing ad revenues on partnered devices, Google is essentially paying manufacturers and carriers to use Android).

How does Apple compete against tablet undercutting? How does Microsoft compete against operating system undercutting? Maybe the parameters have changed, and we should embrace the "better way of doing it without extracting that much payment from end users." But beware the world where Microsoft can't sell operating systems and Apple can't sell hardware. We would prefer to have that competition and innovation than none at all.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: