I hope that reading the ridiculous theories by the economists (with the best answer voted down) doesn't look like what an economist sees when they read our analysis of software.
I'm not an economist, but I think the top answer makes plenty of sense. Price discrimination is an important concept for many products: cinemas, bus/train tickets, computers...
Instead of just proposing theories with nothing backing them up, like the answer that's being voted down, the top post refers to people who have actually modeled the problem and checked that their theories explain the data.
I tend to agree with the OP on this; the top post cites a lot of complicated language but the conclusion is kind of weak (why do these "popcorn lovers" feel it's worth more to buy it at the movies?).
The answer further down that points out that someone on a date buys it there so as not to look cheap is, to me, more insightful than citing a bunch of papers. I guess I find an explanation of why the market will bear the high price at the theatre more interesting than a whole lot of economic jargon around it. Although this is the economics stack exchange thing, so maybe that's what's expected...
Rest assured that is not what we see. I cannot speak for everyone, but most economists wouldn't call your theories "ridiculous" unless they had significant experience on which to base such a claim. I hope they would also back up their "ridiculous" claim with some peer reviewed literature that demonstrates that the theories presented are, indeed, ridiculous. I hope representatives of our profession would be more respectful than that.
