Hacker News Reader

Slightly different take IMO.

There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.

If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.

View on HN

If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes.

Or sell them at $1000 itself if that's really where the demand is at.

>then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.

But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out.

why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?

Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.

For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.

It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com