Why companies make their products worse
I don&#x27;t agree with the idea that giving companies better and better tools to achieve price discrimination is the win-win that the final quote seems to make it out to be. Yes, I can see how it could allow a company to offer goods to people who otherwise would not be able to access their services, but this comes at the cost of potentially complicated usage restrictions, making it easier for incumbents to squash new competitors, and pushing for more and more of a legal framework to support this kind of business model at the expense of the end user. I can think of examples where the products are barely (if at all) worse and see how heavily it swings things in favour of the powerful incumbent:<p>Trademark restrictions to prevent importing what could be effectively the same textbook or wrist watch.<p>DVD region locking where you can sell practically an identical product but charge vastly different rates in different areas, and it&#x27;s illegal to work around.<p>License agreements on software not to restrict specific functionality, but rather the usage scenarios.<p>The example in the article of the slower LaserPrinter example morphs from being a physical restriction to modern printer cartridges that block ink refills via DRM.<p>Comcast&#x27;s battle with Google Fibre where the price will heavily drop in just the areas where Google Fibre operates. Makes it much harder for Google Fibre to make any gains, but the vast majority of Comcast customers see no decrease in their bills.<p>Even the recent EpiPen drama, where they want to be able to milk as much as possible out of the pockets of insurance companies, but end users don&#x27;t want to play the real price, so they introduce the co-pay discount to try and offset that cost. It makes the &quot;rich&quot; organisation pay, but reduces the amount paid by an individual.