> Sneakerbots killed it for everyone

Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.

▲

epsteingpt an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	HWR_14 25 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	bawolff an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>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?

▲

bawolff 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.