3 ms·
> There’s nothing wrong with this. These are standard ratios, not some dirty secret. Nowhere in the original post is the word “dirty” or any implication that t
by js2 4y ago
> There’s nothing wrong with this. These are standard ratios, not some dirty secret.
Nowhere in the original post is the word “dirty” or any implication that there’s anything wrong with the ratios. The OP qualifies their post with:
> None of this is actually secret (it would be common knowledge for anyone employed in the industry) but isn't well-known outside of it. This audience has a lot of professionals in it so a lot of this might not be news to you.
And after going into many things that factor into the retail price concludes with:
> In that sense, a 3:1 retail to COGS price is arguably very fair or even low, especially for firms that do any R&D at all. I personally wouldn't say something is overpriced until you hit 10:1 or more.
The quotes around “secret” are there in the first place to imply these aren’t actually secrets, much less dirty secrets.
- Razengan 4y agoNowwhere in the GP comment is the word “outraged”. That’s your word. So, what, you wanted to be aghast or something and misrepresented the tone of the original comment with a selective quote and addition of the word “outrage”? Shit HN says. Sheesh. (This comment was a copy of the one above before it was edited)
- js2 4y agoOkay. I’ve edited my comment for tone and to stick to the facts. I still think the comment I replied to misrepresents the original piece by quoting very selectively and adding the word “dirty”.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- eyelidlessness 4y ago> Shit HN says. Sheesh Indeed. I read the article, then I read these three comments. The first one reiterates points that the article made but seemingly doesn’t recognize the article made them. The second does recognize that but with a combative tone. The third is just combative. Y’all can carry on as usual but none of that conflict was actually warranted.
- Razengan 4y agoThe third comment parodied the second word for word before the second was edited :-)
- eyelidlessness 4y agoI don’t think that reflects better on the third comment :)
- RHSman2 4y agoHN is so Tone Deaf
- adolph 4y agoOpprobrium update urgently needed
- coldtea 4y agoLest not forget the fourth comment, meta-hammering on HN comment quality