Hacker News Reader

Comment by hedora | Hacker News Reader

The fact that Bose has to set their retail prices to include the Amazon surcharge makes it an even better example.

If you buy the headphones at a brick and mortar store, you’re still forced to pay the Amazon shipping surcharge, even if the money is not going to Amazon. This puts brick and mortar stores at an unfair disadvantage, and it is directly traceable to Amazon’s anticompetitive behavior.

View on HN

You are aware that if you buy headphones at a brick and mortar store, 30-40% of the price goes to [retail store] as well because they have warehouses, distributors, storefront rent, and staff salaries to pay right?

The point is that they can't compete on that percentage. That's what makes it anticompetetive.

Steam is doing a similar thing. It's wrong there too.

I disagree with Steam being wrong. It's kinda special situation where product also includes distribution on their store. So I consider justified of them having same pricing.

Now, I'm not saying that this should be apply to copies distributed via other channels. Just to those redeemable on Steam.

To my understanding, Steam does it to copies on all channels.

In this specific example. It is Bose that keep their pricing. And it is likely Bose and Amazon have deals that are not of the same percentage as other sellers. Just like Apple and Amazon's deal.

Reading the article it wasn't clear to me why exactly they couldn't sell elsewhere cheaper. That seems to be an important detail. Is there some fine print stating if you're 'caught' selling cheaper elsewhere you lose the buy button? This wasn't clear to me from the article.

They will exclude you from the "buy box", which "effectively" locks you out. (That's how I got it from thr article)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com