That didnt work against walmart. Fast food might be more resilient but once the AI lube and economic chaos commences, itll just be a brand behind a pinkslime wholesaler.
What does Walmart have to do with it? Walmart sells products that people need at affordable prices. For McDonald's (and a lot of fast food generally these days) the prices have gone up so much that the value isn't there anymore. Sure, McDonald's food was never healthy and it wasn't exactly haute cuisine, but it was convenient and a guilty pleasure for lots. Now it's cheaper, healthier and hardly much more time consuming to make better food at home. Plus, the indoor dining experience is virtually dead at any fast food restaurant I've been to since Covid - it's nearly all drive through and takeout now. Nearly all the value prop for most fast food is gone or going away.
They definitely do, I agree. But it's also fun to see how some other companies keep the prices uniform across the country, here in Japan. Real estate prices are insanely different between my neighbourhood and 2 hours outside of the city. Yet the products are the same prices. I understand the general idea, reasons, and logistics, but it's still fun to experience it.
Agreed, and the use of "AI" in the headline is basically just ragebait. There were companies in the late 90s and I'm sure earlier that sold "pricing optimization software" - that's literally what capitalism is built on: charging a price that optimizes profits. And of course many companies have used things like coupons as a tool for price discrimination for decades.
There are parts further down in the article that are more concerning because they're using what should really be more private data in their pricing algorithms, like your geolocation, personal history or even the type of phone you have. But "store location" has been an aspect in pricing algorithms since basically the dawn of capitalism.
The calculus that McDonalds continues to miss is people have a lot of choices when it comes to fast food. They have a lot of built up brand equity and nostalgia, but they seem pretty dead set on killing that.
I don't eat at McDonalds. My friends don't eat at McDonalds. The McDonalds is so bad where we live kids don't like McDonalds because the food is bad even as far as fast food standards go.
It's a reach to even say that's a function of government. It's definitely not a primary function. Outside of a few relatively brief failed experiments, it's not historically something that government does at all.
Should consumer protections only apply to basic needs? What happens when your grocery store starts dynamically pricing food and water? What happens when all of them do it?
Price discrimination on monopoly goods doesnt seem so bad to me. A lot of people who arent willing to pay so much would likely be able to get stuff that otherwise would be limited to the wealthy. Drug prices should definitely have price discrimination as far as Im concerned.
Well I guess we'll find out if McDonald's bottleneck is indeed hamburger availability, and if they'll be selling their limited hamburger supply for less profit by charging some people less than before, rather than gouging customers.
Like how letting a car insurance company surveil you will famously make your rates go down? This is a price-gouging tool first and foremost - if you walked into the restaurant then presumably you're already motivated to buy something, so now they just need to find the exact breaking point of each customer at which they will just barely decide not to leave. I have never heard of dynamic pricing being used in a good way, it is pure money extraction for nothing, so no, saying that it can really benefit us equally as much as it will hurt us is not an accurate way to rewrite the title.
The article points out that they also might charge you more than the person next to you if you make more money than them, which (ignoring the privacy concerns momentarily) actually seems progressive?
It's kind of funny seeing unabashed capitalism attempting to achieve similar equalization goals to progressive tax policy. But I guess this has always been the case with market segmentation anyways (e.g. paying ridiculous amounts extra for 1st class on the airplane, or a special paint job or trim for your car).
I think the main difference is what people consider fair, transparent, and respectful of privacy. Additionally, people want to feel like they have a choice.
Would they charge me less if I was poor? If they comped a family of fours meals because they were below the poverty line I would argue it was almost progressive, but they are only doing this to extract more money from people who they think might not be as price sensitive.
> This means you could literally stand side-by-side with another shopper, scan the same TV, and see a $100 difference just because the store's AI thinks you make more money.
Isn't this highly illegal in most developed countries?
It's not that simple because it's asymmetric. The companies track you (via firms that can see your purchases across different retailers) but how can you track the companies to find a bargain? Historically you might follow Consumer Reports, your neighbor's advice, or just look at advertised prices, but if everybody is offered a personalized price, now it becomes more difficult for you to compare or even identify prices. And what you're offered today might not be--and if Amazon is any indicator, won't be--the price offered tomorrow, making it more difficult to plan and budget across purchases (individuals don't have the scale and analytic prowess retailers have).
Fair price discrimination would involve some kind of bidding system, but that has high transaction costs for both sides. And naturally sellers aren't interested in maximizing global efficiency or competitiveness. Like any company they prefer "solutions" that give them an advantage over the consumer.
It still might be a net win overall, and I don't have strong opinions one way or another beyond being apprehensive about knee jerk public policy proposals, but surely the sellers will see a larger share of the benefits, possibly accelerating wealth inequality and people's growing sense of economic insecurity. That sense of security is critical for maintaining free (or freer) markets, otherwise the population is prone to using their political powers to try to take back bargaining power, and very often that winds up being a loss for everybody.
Individual franchise fast food restaurants in the same city can be owned by two totally different groups of people and have very different cost structures for the real estate acquisition cost and build cost, and very different debt loads.
McDonalds restaurants are required to conform to a monolithic corporate identity as part of their franchise agreement but many are individually owned.
I'm not trying to excuse dynamic algorithm based pricing (and personal opinion, McD is crap ultraprocessed pseudo-food), but I'm pretty sure there's a $2 difference between the price of two totally unrelated shawarma vendors for approximately the same product that are within 800 meters of each other in my city as well.
No, I'm describing a documented fact of why specifically McDonalds has different pricing in different locations. It has been that way since basically forever. They are individually owned by franchisees and within a certain range do set different pricing in different retail premises. I don't like McDonalds but it's also very ignorant that people are treating this like it's something new.
Next I'm sure some people will discover and be shocked by the fact that the non-corporate-run starbucks kiosks in some major international airports (run by an airport catering/specialist service company) have different prices than their corporate-run local starbucks.
Now if the topic is, as someone else has described in other linked threads on the same topic that different people using the app are getting different pricing for the same store, that's new to me and certainly something to be concerned about. It sounds like what airline ticket booking/purchase sites are known to do depending on your cookies, IP, useragent, browser fingerprint, etc. Very slimy.
The answer to this one is simple: Don't eat at McDonald's. The food is garbage, the service is awful, and the prices are insane.
That didnt work against walmart. Fast food might be more resilient but once the AI lube and economic chaos commences, itll just be a brand behind a pinkslime wholesaler.
What does Walmart have to do with it? Walmart sells products that people need at affordable prices. For McDonald's (and a lot of fast food generally these days) the prices have gone up so much that the value isn't there anymore. Sure, McDonald's food was never healthy and it wasn't exactly haute cuisine, but it was convenient and a guilty pleasure for lots. Now it's cheaper, healthier and hardly much more time consuming to make better food at home. Plus, the indoor dining experience is virtually dead at any fast food restaurant I've been to since Covid - it's nearly all drive through and takeout now. Nearly all the value prop for most fast food is gone or going away.
[dead]
[dead]
"price food items differently depending on where they are bought"
Everyone is aware that they have been doing this since forever, right?
Like, you've traveled to a different location, and discovered prices are different in different cities?
Or how prices downtown are usually higher?
Some of the other companies discussed go beyond this, yes, but the headline is just absurd
They definitely do, I agree. But it's also fun to see how some other companies keep the prices uniform across the country, here in Japan. Real estate prices are insanely different between my neighbourhood and 2 hours outside of the city. Yet the products are the same prices. I understand the general idea, reasons, and logistics, but it's still fun to experience it.
Agreed, and the use of "AI" in the headline is basically just ragebait. There were companies in the late 90s and I'm sure earlier that sold "pricing optimization software" - that's literally what capitalism is built on: charging a price that optimizes profits. And of course many companies have used things like coupons as a tool for price discrimination for decades.
There are parts further down in the article that are more concerning because they're using what should really be more private data in their pricing algorithms, like your geolocation, personal history or even the type of phone you have. But "store location" has been an aspect in pricing algorithms since basically the dawn of capitalism.
The calculus that McDonalds continues to miss is people have a lot of choices when it comes to fast food. They have a lot of built up brand equity and nostalgia, but they seem pretty dead set on killing that.
I don't eat at McDonalds. My friends don't eat at McDonalds. The McDonalds is so bad where we live kids don't like McDonalds because the food is bad even as far as fast food standards go.
They just banned algorithmic pricing in seattle grocery stores. What that means and how they can possibly enforce it, I have no idea.
Can't they just do it with personalized discounts and other loyalty programs? That's what everyone's doing around here.
oof.
Thats a lot of overreach.
Regulation of predatory pricing practices is a primary function of government.
It's a reach to even say that's a function of government. It's definitely not a primary function. Outside of a few relatively brief failed experiments, it's not historically something that government does at all.
The history of regulating monpolies in the usa is indeed long and sparse.
thats not very capitalist of them.. come on. how is it the free market cant handle something like this?
Has always been the case.
Getting AI boost though. Like watch traffic patterns and sporting events, crank it as much as they can!
Please ban all on demand pricing government. Limit it to 1 price a day or something
Why stop there, why not pipe all the towns water through the store and serve it at a premium on hot days?
Let Ai decide if you need a drink.
Water is a basic need. McDonald’s and Uber are not basic needs.
Should consumer protections only apply to basic needs? What happens when your grocery store starts dynamically pricing food and water? What happens when all of them do it?
Price discrimination on monopoly goods doesnt seem so bad to me. A lot of people who arent willing to pay so much would likely be able to get stuff that otherwise would be limited to the wealthy. Drug prices should definitely have price discrimination as far as Im concerned.
For some skeptical reason, I only see this raising prices when demand increases, not lowering it beyond a base “regular” amount.
That just means the "regular" amount is higher than you think.
Well I guess we'll find out if McDonald's bottleneck is indeed hamburger availability, and if they'll be selling their limited hamburger supply for less profit by charging some people less than before, rather than gouging customers.
it will be $x + $y, never $x - $y.
Seattle leading the way
https://wilson.seattle.gov/2026/09/23/seattle-becomes-first-...
38 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49899453
20 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49901900
So that they can subsidize food for the needy, right? Fully automated space Robin Hood, right?
the title could be similarly written as "your big Mac might cost less if McDonald's pricing calculator thinks you need a discount"
Like how letting a car insurance company surveil you will famously make your rates go down? This is a price-gouging tool first and foremost - if you walked into the restaurant then presumably you're already motivated to buy something, so now they just need to find the exact breaking point of each customer at which they will just barely decide not to leave. I have never heard of dynamic pricing being used in a good way, it is pure money extraction for nothing, so no, saying that it can really benefit us equally as much as it will hurt us is not an accurate way to rewrite the title.
The article points out that they also might charge you more than the person next to you if you make more money than them, which (ignoring the privacy concerns momentarily) actually seems progressive?
It's kind of funny seeing unabashed capitalism attempting to achieve similar equalization goals to progressive tax policy. But I guess this has always been the case with market segmentation anyways (e.g. paying ridiculous amounts extra for 1st class on the airplane, or a special paint job or trim for your car).
I think the main difference is what people consider fair, transparent, and respectful of privacy. Additionally, people want to feel like they have a choice.
Would they charge me less if I was poor? If they comped a family of fours meals because they were below the poverty line I would argue it was almost progressive, but they are only doing this to extract more money from people who they think might not be as price sensitive.
Of course they will and if you are homeless and hungry wearing cardboard shorts, they will give you a bed and free feed.
> This means you could literally stand side-by-side with another shopper, scan the same TV, and see a $100 difference just because the store's AI thinks you make more money.
Isn't this highly illegal in most developed countries?
It’s so hard to tell whether this is really happening or not since journalists are so bad at understanding these concepts.
What I do know is that laws on these issues are woefully slow to adapt.
They also pair that with increased prices unless you use the app. It is particularly insidious.
Another nail in the coffin.
Mind specifying which coffin?
Maccas.
Still a dupe from your last submission OP;
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49899453
[flagged]
It's not that simple because it's asymmetric. The companies track you (via firms that can see your purchases across different retailers) but how can you track the companies to find a bargain? Historically you might follow Consumer Reports, your neighbor's advice, or just look at advertised prices, but if everybody is offered a personalized price, now it becomes more difficult for you to compare or even identify prices. And what you're offered today might not be--and if Amazon is any indicator, won't be--the price offered tomorrow, making it more difficult to plan and budget across purchases (individuals don't have the scale and analytic prowess retailers have).
Fair price discrimination would involve some kind of bidding system, but that has high transaction costs for both sides. And naturally sellers aren't interested in maximizing global efficiency or competitiveness. Like any company they prefer "solutions" that give them an advantage over the consumer.
It still might be a net win overall, and I don't have strong opinions one way or another beyond being apprehensive about knee jerk public policy proposals, but surely the sellers will see a larger share of the benefits, possibly accelerating wealth inequality and people's growing sense of economic insecurity. That sense of security is critical for maintaining free (or freer) markets, otherwise the population is prone to using their political powers to try to take back bargaining power, and very often that winds up being a loss for everybody.
Breaking news, big mac might cost more in midtown manhattan than in topeka kansas, film at 11.
<snore>
This is a poor take and reads like a strawman. The post is mentioning locations 2 miles from one another varying by almost $2USD for the same product.
Individual franchise fast food restaurants in the same city can be owned by two totally different groups of people and have very different cost structures for the real estate acquisition cost and build cost, and very different debt loads.
McDonalds restaurants are required to conform to a monolithic corporate identity as part of their franchise agreement but many are individually owned.
I'm not trying to excuse dynamic algorithm based pricing (and personal opinion, McD is crap ultraprocessed pseudo-food), but I'm pretty sure there's a $2 difference between the price of two totally unrelated shawarma vendors for approximately the same product that are within 800 meters of each other in my city as well.
except you are trying to excuse it
No, I'm describing a documented fact of why specifically McDonalds has different pricing in different locations. It has been that way since basically forever. They are individually owned by franchisees and within a certain range do set different pricing in different retail premises. I don't like McDonalds but it's also very ignorant that people are treating this like it's something new.
Next I'm sure some people will discover and be shocked by the fact that the non-corporate-run starbucks kiosks in some major international airports (run by an airport catering/specialist service company) have different prices than their corporate-run local starbucks.
Now if the topic is, as someone else has described in other linked threads on the same topic that different people using the app are getting different pricing for the same store, that's new to me and certainly something to be concerned about. It sounds like what airline ticket booking/purchase sites are known to do depending on your cookies, IP, useragent, browser fingerprint, etc. Very slimy.