Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaphirplane | Hacker News Reader

I get why people have a negative reaction and it makes sense. Then I look at retail where there are several wholeseller adding a %, stores adding a %, drop ship sellers adding a percent

There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting

View on HN

They want 30% of the Network Fees which are paid to Validators (Ethereum nodes that staked 32ETH to help secure the network). Coinbase never get any of that, it's not their commission etc.

It's more like Apple demanding a cut of your call charges.

This might be a relevant comparison if the App Store had any businesses it competes with, like the ones grocery stores contend with.

I know we've debated this to death, but Android's market share is bigger than iPhone's.

The consumer owns one phone or the other, and the switching costs are ridiculously high (in no small part because of other properties of these anti-competitive store licensing models). The average consumer happily can shop at multiple grocery stores, even on the same day as part of the same trip... if isn't even uncommon. The segmentation of users into the ones that own an iPhone vs. the ones that own an Android device should be looked at as creating two separate markets, similar to how if you have a monopoly on groceries only in Wisconsin you somehow aren't considered a monopoly just because your national marketshare is small.

Yes, Android's share is much bigger, but the statement is too generalized to make a relative comparison. While Android has 70+% of global market share, it's important to understand how the users LTV of any consumer business varies based on geo dispersion, hardware price tier, user sophistication and sales distribution model. Apple delivers users that are quantifiably more valuable in every geo.

That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment

The equivalent situation would be if the world had two landlords which together owned essentially every single bit of commercial property on the planet (or at least most of the countries) and if you wanted to sell chicken, you'd have to agree to whatever terms those landlords set, which are mostly identical between them.

But it's ok because you have the option of building your own store on your own island and convincing enough people to relocate to your island to buy chicken direct.

If it actually mattered to enough people, they would sail over to that island. The fact that most don't is extremely telling about what people actually want, I think.

(F-Droid is right there. It's relatively trivial to install on an Android device. As is, last I checked, replacing the whole Android OS).

In the US a large portion of phones are via carrier contract and hardware locked. So no.

The law mandated phone number portability in 2003. Everything else is buyer beware. Why is the answer not just "Don't get in a contract with Apple hardware if you don't want to be stuck playing Apple's ballgame?"

That's the responsibility of the consumer to read the contract. You also can leave with a penalty.

Libertarianism is like the tide on hackernews, it's quite confusing

In the US I can just buy an iPhone from Apple with no hardware lock. So no.

Idk A chicken farmer doesn’t even dream of keeping 70% the retail price of a chicken

I think we are both pushing the metaphor beyond usefulness

The was a study in Denmark that from the money people pay in a supermarked 25% goes to advertising industry while the farmers receive less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com