Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrkmcknz | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I'm too naive to see why manufactures having their own showrooms would be such a problem?

As a modern example: look at luxotica for an example of a monopoly. They own large shares of the manufacturing and retail for eyeglasses, and they charge exorbitant prices.

They own Oakley, Ray-Ban, LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Sunglass Hut. They also operate Sears Optical and Target Optical.

They also produce eyewear under license for names such as Coach, Anne Klein, Bulgari, Prada, Polo, Versace, Ralph Lauren, and Tiffany.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870451890457536...

Making manufacturers divest of retail operations is a way to break up their monopoly.

...And brands like BonLook and Warby Parker are disrupting the old industry right now.

My wife and friends (24-27 years old) have been getting their glasses at $100 a pop, no strings attached, from these companies for a few years.

Below that in the price spectrum, there's Zenni Optical. I bought a $20 pair of glasses from them over a year ago & they've been very good to me. They aren't quite as stylish as Warby Parker, but they are still pretty nice.

Why does having a Walmart raise such ire in small towns? These types of companies expatriate dollars from local economies. I think that's the reason for the original laws.

Imagine that Ford only allows maintenance at company owned stores, because they don't sell replacement parts to dealers, then they charge $500 for a fan belt, etc.

Except that if I knew that was their way of business I would simply avoid buying their products.

Isn't this a case where the free market actually would account for that scenario? It's not like they have a car monopoly.

agreed. i'm just describing the ostensible reason for the law...

Then no one will buy a Ford.

People would probably wise up and buy toyota, nissan, gm, etc. There is more than one car maker.

That, of course, implies a world with no collusion.

Could they not already sell their fan belt to dealers for 500$ if they wanted to?

They don't make their own fan belts. The dealer would simply switch to another brand. They are standardized, after all.

Image that the Ford dealership was the only dealership within an hour's drive of your house (not an uncommon situation when these laws were enacted).

Wait, how is this different from any consumer device that has a warranty?

edit: e.g. let's say my apple laptop breaks, even if I could fix it or get it fixed by a third party for cheap, I have to take it to the apple store to not risk losing my warranty completely.

Well, many states have laws specifically for that: a car manufacturer's warranty cannot be cancelled just because the owner or someone the owner paid worked on the car.

The manufacturer's warranty can only be voided if the manufacturer can prove that the warranty claim arose directly due to the owner (or someone they paid). So if the owner changes their own oil and the rear bumper falls off? Warranty.

That's exactly what Nikon does.

They have have advantages over non-manufacturer dealerships. For instance, parts would be internal and thus they may get them for just material cost which would allow for either lower service costs or higher margins both of which aren't available at non-manufacture dealerships. You could apply the same scenario to fully finished new cars as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com