logoalt Hacker News

ryandraketoday at 7:21 PM3 repliesview on HN

> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone.

This logic justifies buying any other unrelated product as a condition of being allowed to buy baseball tickets. Does this mean that the Dodgers should be able to make "owning a car" also a condition of being allowed to buy baseball tickets? After all, if you can afford season tickets, you should be able to afford a car payment. Maybe they should only let people in who own rolexes because, hey, a season ticket holder should be able to afford a nice watch, too.

I can't think of any other case pre-smartphone, where I'd be denied the ability to buy a product simply because I didn't want to have to buy another totally unrelated product as a condition. There's probably an example that's not immediately coming to mind, but I don't think it was common or justified.


Replies

Tangurena2today at 8:03 PM

In some stadiums, the seat and the ticket are sold separately (example: Levi's Stadium [0]). You have to buy the seat and if you want to see a game, then buy a ticket to sit in the seat you own to watch that game (or rock concert).

Notes:

0 - https://levisstadium.com/tickets-suites/

charcircuittoday at 8:03 PM

Even before computers there were companies that required you to pay for a phone (call) in order to transact with a business. Or interact with a mail carrier to order something by mail order.

9rxtoday at 7:30 PM

> I can't think of any other case pre-smartphone, where I'd be denied the ability to buy a product simply because I didn't want to have to buy another totally unrelated product as a condition.

Then you must not have been around pre-smartphone? Those of us who were will remember having to buy either banknotes or checks. Later, some would accept a certain type of card that you could buy. If you weren't willing to buy any of those things there was little chance of a deal taking place. Showing up with your goat to offer in exchange would get you laughed out of the room, even though there was an even earlier time where bringing a goat would have been considered quite reasonable. Realistically, the most desperate vendors will still accept your goat as payment if that is what's on the table, but, as I am sure you can imagine, it isn't worth the effort for those who have the luxury of choice. Where technology makes a seller's life simpler, they will demand it. Why wouldn't they?

show 1 reply