> You say that as if it isn’t the entire reason why these interactions should be avoided at all costs. Dynamic pricing should be a crime.

Does segmentation also count as dynamic pricing?

    The IT guy at Podunk Lutheran College has no money: Gratis.
    The IT guy at a medium-sized real estate agency has some money: $500.
    The IT guy at a Fortune 100 company has tons of money: $50,000.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/oh-you-wanted-awesome-edition/

▲ Terr_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not parent poster, but I think a more practical approach is to ban secret discriminatory pricing.

If everybody can see the prices that would be quoted in other circumstances, that exerts a strong moderating force against abuse.

It won't help you if there's a monopoly, but I consider that a separate problem needing separate solutions.

▲ transcriptase 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The entire lab supply industry is disgusting in this respect. The funding (and recent grants) that a given professor or research lab has is generally publicly available information that vendors will buy in easily digestible formats from brokers and companies that scrape the websites of major granting agencies.

All of their products, however realistically commoditized, will require a drawn out engagement with a rep who knows how much money you’ve received recently and even has an outline what research you plan to do over the next few years since even the detailed applications often get published alongside funding allocations.

The exact same piece of equipment, consumables required to use it, and service agreements might be anywhere from X to 10X depending on what they (as a result of asymmetrically available knowledge) know you need and how much you could theoretically spend.

▲

lokar 3 days ago | parent [-]

A group of research universities should start a non-profit co-op to produce this for them.

Getting just the university of California should be enough critical mass.

	▲	xmcqdpt2 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Depends on the product. Some products just have a single supplier for the whole world over, because they are extremely specialized. It's not uncommon though for eg departments to have common equipment that they negotiate together.

▲ sh34r 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

While I can certainly think of ways in which ordinary segmentation can be stretched beyond the limits of what’s reasonable, the example you give is categorically different.

In your example, you’re paying extra for additional capabilities. Doesn’t really matter if it’s a nonlinear increase in cost with the number of seats. Two companies buy 500 seats and pay the same price.

What I object to is some sales bro deciding I should pay 5x more for those same licenses because of who I am, what I look like, where I’m from, etc. It’s absolutely repulsive. Why can’t you simply provide a fair service at a fair price and stop playing these fuck-fuck games? You’re making a profit on this sale either way. Stop trying to steal my profit margin.

Instead of trying to scam me by abusing information asymmetry, why not use your sales talents to upsell me on additional or custom services, once you’ve demonstrated value? Honest and reliable vendors generally get continued (and increasing) business.

Conversely, these Broadcom/private-equity/mafia tactics generally have me running for the exits ASAP. Spite is one hell of a motivator.