Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by somebodythere | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

somebodythere

A single provider deciding to charge you 16% of your revenue is kind of unusual.

View on HN

It's $3500 per year so costs more like 16%/12. Intentionally deceptive and also a very reasonable cost

Not with a week to decide on such a massive hike

Consumer electronics.

Make a device for $5, it'll sell on store shelves for $30, you may get $3-$5 of that.

Everyone is super spoiled by the finances behind digital distribution methods.

Try running an IHOP or the like. You’ll be keeping a dollar or two on that $15 entree.

Or a gas station.

Their margins are outrageous but only if they can get you to come inside - they're only making a cent or two off each gallon of gas they sell.

And yet: there are gas stations hundred feet away from each other that have gas prices tens of cents apart.

Which makes sense. They've found the best locations to sell gas from, and also the best places to receive large gas shipments and store enough gas to sell safely

Here in Europe, some brands (that I consistently stay away from) like BP have consistently higher prices than rest of the market. We talk about competition of Eni, Shell, Total, Agip etc. Not meaning no-name questionable shops.

I don't think they are that ineffective in manufacturing, renting/buying land, building infrastructure or paying much more. Some locations ask for higher prices just because they don't have any competition in area.

And yes they charge easily 3x for stuff they know you will buy like redbulls, chocolate and so on.

But that $14 went to 50 different suppliers. Your dairy supplier didn't suddenly decide they are worth $5 all by themselves.

Well that’s a distinction without a difference to the IHOP owner.

Incorrect.

Apple’s App Store charges much more than that for a service that includes only very basic hosting of an application package.

That is also egregious, but Apple and Google are getting away with it because they have a duopoly over mobile phone app stores. Not so with video hosting.

Isn't it so though? What viable alternatives exist?

Definitely educate me, but: what is Vimeo doing for a B2B solution that Youtube can't provide? You can provide unlisted videos (and that is something a few pareon users have done).

It's odd because Vimeo was most known to me for hosting art portfolios, so seeing it denounce it's "indie" status is bewildering. I assume the advantage comes from providing uncompressed videos with extremely high bitrate. Which is an admittedly extremely niche market.

an alternative is Amazon Video Direct where content providers receive 50% of net revenue. seems like a worse deal than Apple & Google.

https://videodirect.amazon.com/home/help?topicId=G202037410&...

I have never understood how pointing out another unethical policy justifies the first unethical policy

It seems we as a society have lost the axiom of "2 wrongs do not make a right" as it is not just this area were I see people attempting to justify their wrongs based on the wrongs of others...

> includes only very basic hosting of an application package

Only basic hosting if you ignore all of the other services. You might consider the App Store's revenue share high but don't pretend the App Store is just a dumb file host.

What else do they do besides provide a payments gateway ( that they force you to use)? As seen with Android, you don't need to use the official app store to use the official SDKs and platform APIs.

Developing 3rd party frameworks is a meaningful expense. AOSP means Google made a business decision to incur that expense and sign away rights to it, but Apple hasn't.

And that is a bad thing.

More like 1.2% of her revenue.

1%, the 3500 is yearly.

It’s 1% of revenue. You mixed up monthly and annual.

Tell that to Google ads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com