[pessimizer]

I don't even think it's deplorable, if it's possible to charge iPhone users more, do it. They'll pay. It also doesn't matter if it's illegal; they're suing because the entire fee system may be fraudulent, and since they're hiding this alleged iPhone tax in arbitrarily named and applied fees, it's relevant.

Even worse imo, if it's held to be true, Doordash will be in real existence-threatening trouble with iPhone users and will have to increase its marketing spending towards them drastically.

[pleb_nz]

Will general door dash users even know of the suit. Not exactly plastered over the news, hackernews is the only place I've seen an air about it.

[nobody9999]

>Will general door dash users even know of the suit. Not exactly plastered over the news, hackernews is the only place I've seen an air about it.

It was reported today on local TV news here in NYC (NY1), which is what got me to search HN for this discussion.

And since local TV news isn't exactly geared toward the tech savvy, I'd expect this will be widely covered across US media.

[pleb_nz]

Be interesting to see if there is any impact. Especially globally as well.

[zamnos]

HN isn't the source though. the two articles I can remember are sfgate.com, readership in around 30 millon/month, and ars Technica, which is a fairly popular site, though I don't have stats for them.

[pleb_nz]

That still doesn't sound a terrible situation for door dash considering the global reach. Not sure about sfgate, but ars would be a pretty niche group as well

[autoexec]

> I don't even think it's deplorable,

That'd put you in the minority, but companies have been working hard for many years to get consumers used to the idea that they should be able to discriminate against specific groups of people and jack up their prices for individuals based on whatever they want. Retail, even grocery stores, have been experimenting with dynamic discriminatory pricing.

I'd love to see laws that require companies to post their prices clearly and publicly and prevents them from deviating from those prices no matter who places the order or brings an item to the register.

We may soon find ourselves in a future where you're required to identify yourself just to see a price because it'll be calculated as a percentage of your total income. Where your political views, your medical conditions, countless proxies for race/religion/sexual orientation, or even who your friends are, can cause you to pay more or even get you priced out of things you regularly buy today.

You might think that you can always "vote with your wallet" if you feel that you're being ripped off, but that doesn't help you when every restaurant and retailer is doing the exact same thing, and none of it is transparent to the user so you won't be allowed to know when you're getting screwed over or how badly no matter which arbitrary metric is being used as justification for squeezing every last possible penny out of you.

[rlpb]

Traditionally this is how markets worked. Every purchase was individually negotiated. It's only in recent times that uniform "consumer" pricing was even invented.

> ...no matter which arbitrary metric is being used as justification for squeezing every last possible penny out of you.

This is how free markets are supposed to work. The seller seeks to maximize the price and the buyer seeks to minimize it. Lazy buyers who don't bother checking the competition can expect to pay more.

The problem occurs when there is limited competition. In that situation I'm in favor of regulation (as well as to protect certain classes of people such as race, gender etc). But I don't think that's a problem in this case - or at least, that's not what you're arguing?