Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the real lesson here is:

Never offer "unlimited". Because if you promise "unlimited" people will treat it as "unlimited".

The results usually aren't pretty.

EDIT: As the post below points out, telecoms are a prime example of companies getting burned on this.

My other go-to example would be all you can eat buffets. I know I've read about at least one lawsuit over people being kicked for eating too much at a buffet. (Or in the case of the only result I can get search engines to give me, too little.)

Of course, in the case of the buffet they're relying on the hope that people eat less than what they pay to get in on average. And since this sort of restaurant seems to stay in business that bet must be in the owners favor.

I hypothesize that business owners use this logic and offer unlimited only to watch it crash and burn all over their profit margins. From what I can tell, buffets appear to be the exception; not the rule.



All you can eat buffets work because there's a physical limit to how much you can consume in a meal. It's comparable to a one-day train pass not a lifetime membership.


All you can eat buffets at $x a month kind of schemes perfectly fit this case.

The catch in such businesses is they serve repeated food, often spicy and oily. Which makes them unhealthy. By that, they effectively manage to make their customers eat less and increase their profits.

Except that to keep customers in the game, at times they do serve good food at some period.


See AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et. al?


Nordstrom offers unlimited and lifetime exchanges for cash. It appears to work well (overall) for them.


What "too little" search result are you referring to?



I googled for 20 minutes to find out what the final verdict was in this lawsuit. Couldn't find it. That was an interesting case, but I can see my googlefu not strong enough.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: