Hacker News Reader

Comment by tolbish | Hacker News Reader

> This should be a great opportunity to test whether at this point we're all so conditioned to rely on these services, will we be willing to pay more?

Uber tested this out years ago when they first launched. In my city they offered ride passes that had a flat fare (of less than $5 per trip, within some threshold...I think it was within 20 miles). Then when they expanded they slowly raised the price of the flat fare before getting rid of it altogether.

In short, yes, we are generally conditioned to rely on these services.

View on HN

Makes you wonder if this sort of strategy should be legal.

Uber wants you to make decisions like choosing to live in a home away from public transportation because you know you can use Uber instead of the train. Once you've made that decision, your ability to walk Uber out of your life goes out the door, and you pretty much have to accept any changes that they make to the pricing.

You could make that argument about anything. Are you wondering whether raising prices should be legal?

They shouldn't be operating below costs at any time. That is anticompetitive and disingenuous.

It's strategic, smart, and absolutely legal.

It's called dumping and depending on the specifics and jurisdiction, it can be illegal. It falls under the general umbrella of anti-competitive actions.

In that case, almost every VC backed startup would be illegal.

According to the ftc for predatory pricing to be illegal you need to use it to drive out the competitors and then gouge customers until you recoup your losses.

In the US anti-trust is absurdly focused on whether there is costs in the form of high prices passed onto the consumer.

I'm fine with that.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

You're basically saying that unprofitable companies shouldn't be allowed to legally exist.

It's so common on HN to see people argue law and policy and then generalize it to make an argument.

They didn't say unprofitable companies shouldn't exist, but there's certainly a case to be made that large companies swooping into a market, reducing their prices to squash competition and then raising prices is not good for consumers, and there's governments that make this practice illegal. Intent matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com