Your example doesn’t apply, because the stores only sell MCD products and MCD products can only be purchased at their stores. Thus TO THE PUBLIC, they are the same entity and it is logical to expect consistent pricing. Now if they were to say, allow all other fast food franchises to sell the Big Mac, but dictate that it cannot ever be priced below an MCD store, then there would be a problem and no consumer would see that policy as a benefit.
Getting to your Nitecore example, I would have no issues with MAP pricing if Nitecore products were only available at Nitecore stores and those stores sold no other brand’s products. If I walk into one of those stores, then I have already made my choice to agree with their pricing policy. But, as soon as they decide that their products should be available to sell in any other store, then they should be willing to offer products with the performance, quality and pricing consistent with what the market determines. MAP is a way for some to artificially maximize pricing, without necessarily delivering the corresponding level of effort in the other two key areas.
As for whether it is fair to you, a re-seller, that’s your choice and issue to deal with. If you’re unable sustain your store because you chose to align with a manufacturer(s) who requires MAP, then it’s not up to me to keep your business afloat when it is found that MAP is not ultimately good for everyone as you and the OP are trying to argue. To me as a consumer, MAP is not fair. Are you willing to make it more fair? Not just to me specifically with a super secret price, but as a consumer in general?
KuoH