Price discrimination on monopoly goods doesnt seem so bad to me. A lot of people who arent willing to pay so much would likely be able to get stuff that otherwise would be limited to the wealthy. Drug prices should definitely have price discrimination as far as Im concerned.
That didnt work against walmart. Fast food might be more resilient but once the AI lube and economic chaos commences, itll just be a brand behind a pinkslime wholesaler.
What does Walmart have to do with it? Walmart sells products that people need at affordable prices. For McDonald's (and a lot of fast food generally these days) the prices have gone up so much that the value isn't there anymore. Sure, McDonald's food was never healthy and it wasn't exactly haute cuisine, but it was convenient and a guilty pleasure for lots. Now it's cheaper, healthier and hardly much more time consuming to make better food at home. Plus, the indoor dining experience is virtually dead at any fast food restaurant I've been to since Covid - it's nearly all drive through and takeout now. Nearly all the value prop for most fast food is gone or going away.
At my local McD I can get a McDouble, small fries and small coke for USD3.50 (CAD5). It is of course possible to cook at home for less than that, but it's not easy nor convenient.
Those prices are very good and in fact lower than any McDonald's I've seen in the US. I just checked the price of a McDouble at my nearest McDonald's and the sandwich alone (no fries or drink) is $4.50.
> What does Walmart have to do with it? Walmart sells products that people need at affordable prices.
Walmart's products are "...garbage, the service is awful, and the prices are..." at least higher than they used to be.
> For McDonald's (and a lot of fast food generally these days) the prices have gone up so much that the value isn't there anymore.
You might have a point on prices with the Walmart vs. McDonalds comparison, but only prices. The first two complaints about McDonalds didn't do anything against Walmart.
> Now it's cheaper, healthier and hardly much more time consuming to make better food at home.
Making food at home is always a lot more time consuming, especially when you factor in cleanup. Also it requires significantly more planning.
I live in the mid-west and while I agree with you, unfortunately, McDonald's is the only realistically good option here. Every other restaurant or food chain has either shut down or is full of unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
It's not that simple because it's asymmetric. The companies track you (via firms that can see your purchases across different retailers) but how can you track the companies to find a bargain? Historically you might follow Consumer Reports, your neighbor's advice, or just look at advertised prices, but if everybody is offered a personalized price, now it becomes more difficult for you to compare or even identify prices. What you're offered today might not be--and if Amazon is any indicator, won't be--the price offered tomorrow.
Fair price discrimination would involve some kind of bidding system, but that has high transaction costs for both sides. And naturally sellers aren't interested in maximizing global efficiency or competitiveness. Like any company they prefer "solutions" that give them an advantage over the consumer.
It still might be a net win overall, but surely the sellers will see a larger share of the benefits, possibly accelerating wealth inequality and people's growing sense of economic insecurity.
It isn't unusual for half of my grocery cart items to have such discounts on them. The same stuff I bought last week shows up in their app with "items you buy" discounts this week. If they outlawed personal pricing I'd be a loser.
The article points out that they also might charge you more than the person next to you if you make more money than them, which (ignoring the privacy concerns momentarily) actually seems progressive?
It's kind of funny seeing unabashed capitalism attempting to achieve similar equalization goals to progressive tax policy. But I guess this has always been the case with market segmentation anyways (e.g. paying ridiculous amounts extra for 1st class on the airplane, or a special paint job or trim for your car).
I think the main difference is what people consider fair, transparent, and respectful of privacy. Additionally, people want to feel like they have a choice.
Would they charge me less if I was poor? If they comped a family of fours meals because they were below the poverty line I would argue it was almost progressive, but they are only doing this to extract more money from people who they think might not be as price sensitive.
They definitely do, I agree. But it's also fun to see how some other companies keep the prices uniform across the country, here in Japan. Real estate prices are insanely different between my neighbourhood and 2 hours outside of the city. Yet the products are the same prices. I understand the general idea, reasons, and logistics, but it's still fun to experience it.
Agreed, and the use of "AI" in the headline is basically just ragebait. There were companies in the late 90s and I'm sure earlier that sold "pricing optimization software" - that's literally what capitalism is built on: charging a price that optimizes profits. And of course many companies have used things like coupons as a tool for price discrimination for decades.
There are parts further down in the article that are more concerning because they're using what should really be more private data in their pricing algorithms, like your geolocation, personal history or even the type of phone you have. But "store location" has been an aspect in pricing algorithms since basically the dawn of capitalism.
This article expresses the issue so poorly I almost think it’s corporate propaganda
The actual issue that is novel is dynamic pricing. Not just a location based rate, but surveillance that raises your individual price. In other words, at the same store, with the same item, we pay different prices because the store has determined you will pay more than me.
Seattle is drafting legislation right now to outlaw this practice and predictably big supermarket chains are out there saying it is a war on discounts
> This means you could literally stand side-by-side with another shopper, scan the same TV, and see a $100 difference just because the store's AI thinks you make more money.
Isn't this highly illegal in most developed countries?
The calculus that McDonalds continues to miss is people have a lot of choices when it comes to fast food. They have a lot of built up brand equity and nostalgia, but they seem pretty dead set on killing that.
I don't eat at McDonalds. My friends don't eat at McDonalds. The McDonalds is so bad where we live kids don't like McDonalds because the food is bad even as far as fast food standards go.
Like how letting a car insurance company surveil you will famously make your rates go down? This is a price-gouging tool first and foremost - if you walked into the restaurant then presumably you're already motivated to buy something, so now they just need to find the exact breaking point of each customer at which they will just barely decide not to leave. I have never heard of dynamic pricing being used in a good way, it is pure money extraction for nothing, so no, saying that it can really benefit us equally as much as it will hurt us is not an accurate way to rewrite the title.
41 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 10.0 ms ] threadPlease ban all on demand pricing government. Limit it to 1 price a day or something
https://wilson.seattle.gov/2026/09/23/seattle-becomes-first-...
Let Ai decide if you need a drink.
Walmart's products are "...garbage, the service is awful, and the prices are..." at least higher than they used to be.
> For McDonald's (and a lot of fast food generally these days) the prices have gone up so much that the value isn't there anymore.
You might have a point on prices with the Walmart vs. McDonalds comparison, but only prices. The first two complaints about McDonalds didn't do anything against Walmart.
> Now it's cheaper, healthier and hardly much more time consuming to make better food at home.
Making food at home is always a lot more time consuming, especially when you factor in cleanup. Also it requires significantly more planning.
20 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49901900
<snore>
Fair price discrimination would involve some kind of bidding system, but that has high transaction costs for both sides. And naturally sellers aren't interested in maximizing global efficiency or competitiveness. Like any company they prefer "solutions" that give them an advantage over the consumer.
It still might be a net win overall, but surely the sellers will see a larger share of the benefits, possibly accelerating wealth inequality and people's growing sense of economic insecurity.
Thats a lot of overreach.
It's kind of funny seeing unabashed capitalism attempting to achieve similar equalization goals to progressive tax policy. But I guess this has always been the case with market segmentation anyways (e.g. paying ridiculous amounts extra for 1st class on the airplane, or a special paint job or trim for your car).
I think the main difference is what people consider fair, transparent, and respectful of privacy. Additionally, people want to feel like they have a choice.
Everyone is aware that they have been doing this since forever, right?
Like, you've traveled to a different location, and discovered prices are different in different cities?
Or how prices downtown are usually higher?
Some of the other companies discussed go beyond this, yes, but the headline is just absurd
There are parts further down in the article that are more concerning because they're using what should really be more private data in their pricing algorithms, like your geolocation, personal history or even the type of phone you have. But "store location" has been an aspect in pricing algorithms since basically the dawn of capitalism.
The actual issue that is novel is dynamic pricing. Not just a location based rate, but surveillance that raises your individual price. In other words, at the same store, with the same item, we pay different prices because the store has determined you will pay more than me.
Seattle is drafting legislation right now to outlaw this practice and predictably big supermarket chains are out there saying it is a war on discounts
Isn't this highly illegal in most developed countries?
What I do know is that laws on these issues are woefully slow to adapt.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49899453
I don't eat at McDonalds. My friends don't eat at McDonalds. The McDonalds is so bad where we live kids don't like McDonalds because the food is bad even as far as fast food standards go.
But thanks to AI, it's coming.