We Spaniards are changing fishmongers for fish on a platter. And it is costing us very expensive

When your grandparents wanted to buy fish, they might have found more or less variety, but they had it easy: they went to the market or the fishmonger, asked questions, chose, paid and returned home with the purchase. Today things are somewhat more complicated. Or not. with consumption in low hours and food spending increasingly concentrated In supermarkets (to the detriment of neighborhood stores), it is increasingly common that instead of buying salmon, sea bream or any other fish on a counter, we take it from a refrigerator, already scaled, filleted and served on trays. The question is… Does that make it more expensive for us? What has happened? that the OCU just responded to a question that you may have asked yourself more than once if you usually consume packaged fish from the supermarket: Are you paying a premium? Would that filleted fish be cheaper if you bought it in the fishmonger’s section instead of on a tray? It is an interesting question if we take into account that Mercadona, the chain with higher market share of the country and agglutinator of more than 30% of the food distribution business in some parts of Spain, has decided retire their fish counters and bet on the sale of this product already prepared, packaged and arranged on trays. What has the OCU found out? In general terms, it is (indeed) likely that you are spending more money by taking home already packaged merchandise instead of buying it at the supermarket fishmonger. After carrying out a study in a dozen chains throughout April, the OCU concluded that “fresh fish sold packaged is up to 30% more expensive than that purchased at the fishmonger if they are small varieties, already cleaned and filleted.” That last nuance is important because the organization’s technicians verified that the percentage goes up or down depending on the type of product we are talking about. In some cases the extra cost of packaged fish compared to that sold over the counter shoots up to 45%. In others it narrows so much that it is almost imperceptible. “The answer is not as simple as it seems: in some cases, especially for smaller or portioned fish, we do pay a lot more to buy clean fish on a tray, but in others, for larger ones, there is almost no difference,” details the OCU. Can it go further? Yes. To begin, it is useful to know how your study was carried out. As recognizes the OCU itselfthe analysis is not as simple as writing down the cost (euros per kilo) of each product and then comparing. There are chains that only sell certain varieties of fish through a single channel (counter or trays). As if that didn’t complicate things enough, there is another key handicap: trays of filleted and packaged fish usually offer 100% edible product; That is, without bones, heads or any other disposable part, something that can happen with whole pieces from the fish market. And how did they calculate it? How can we compare the prices of trays of already cleaned fish with those we see in fishmongers, which usually show the cost €/kg of whole pieces? To solve it, the OCU was based on estimates from the Spanish Nutrition Foundation that they conclude that the edible part of the fish usually represents more or less between 55 and 67%, depending on whether we are talking, for example, about sea bream or sea bass. As for the chains, the OCU set in Ahorramás, Alcampo, Aldi, BM, Carrefour, Dia, Hipercor, La Despensa, Lidl and Mercadona. If we talk about gender, the analysis focused on four species frequently consumed in homes: sea bream, sea bass, hake and salmon. For referencethroughout the year between October 2024 and November 2025, we Spaniards consume 0.56 kg of sea bream, 0.55 of sea bass, 1.44 of salmon and 1.54 of hake. Do those details matter? Yes. Because thanks to them we can better understand how the gap between the price of fish on the counter and on a tray widens or narrows depending on the product we are talking about. The clearest cases are represented sea ​​bream and sea bass. In the first case (gilthead) the OCU calculates that merchandise sold packaged is on average 27% more expensive. And at the counter we also pay for the amount of merchandise that is wasted after weighing the complete piece. In some supermarkets that percentage even shot up to 47%. The case of the sea bass is even more egregious. The surcharge detected in filleted products served on trays is 45%. Is it always like this? Things change considerably when we talk about hake and salome. If we want some slices or loins, there are no big differences depending on whether we ask the fishmonger at the counter or go to the supermarket refrigerator to buy them in trays. A hake cut and prepared on the counter came out in April for €17-25/kgwhile on a tray it was charged at €18-25/kg. The salmon slices or loins also cost practically the same (€20-23/kg) both in the fishmonger and in boats. What is the conclusion? “The conclusion is clear: in small fish, the greater the handling, the more expensive the fish on a tray becomes compared to selling on the counter. In preparations with less handling, the premium is much lower, if not residual,” ditch the organization. In short: there is a premium, although it is not always nor is it equally forceful in all cases. It depends on the type of fish and also the level of preparation we want. “In small and filleted fish, convenience does pay.” Better one or the other? The OCU admits that the trays have “pros and cons” for both consumers and supermarkets. Among the first, the most obvious is speed and comfort. One of its biggest drawbacks is the loss of the figure of the fishmonger, crucial for advising the client, and the generation of waste. The organization also warns … Read more

Microsoft had the deal of the century on its hands. A break of a year and a half was given to one of his rivals on a platter

With its early deal with OpenAI, Microsoft was leading the AI ​​race in 2023. A year later it froze its expansion. Now Oracle serves OpenAI models and competitors share what Nadella’s company rejected. Why is it important. This isn’t just about lost data centers. Microsoft has assigned contracts with OpenAI valued at $420 billion to Oracle, equivalent to $150 billion in gross profit over five years. That would have increased its annual profitability by 18%. This means that in addition to losing growth, Microsoft also financed the entry of a rival into the most profitable business of the decade, according to analysis by Semianalysis. The facts. In 2023, Microsoft multiplied its investment in OpenAI tenfold to $10 billion and broke ground on the largest data centers ever built. Represented more than 60% of all infrastructure leases cloud among the greats. In 2024 it stopped everything in its tracks. It canceled 3.5 gigawatts of planned capacity — enough to power 2.5 million homes — and projects in a dozen countries. Its share of contracts fell below 25%. Between the lines. The company has used the argument of financial prudence: it did not want OpenAI to represent 50% of Azure’s revenue with lower margins than the traditional business. But the reality is simpler: he couldn’t keep up: OpenAI demanded a speed that Microsoft couldn’t match. Yes, but. The company has returned to the market with some urgency. The problem is that the options have been running out. Now rents capacity to neoclouds —specialized companies that build infrastructure—to resell it to third parties. It is a business with worse margins. The company that refused to build now pays commissions for having miscalculated. The money trail. Oracle is not the only winner. CoreWeave, Google, Amazon, Nscale and SB Energy have signed large contracts with OpenAI. In 2025, the story of OpenAI has been the story of its diversification away from Microsoft, although it is true that What seemed like a bad divorce ended in a separation of assets with forced smiles. The world’s most valuable AI lab had to fragment its infrastructure across multiple vendors because its original partner couldn’t—or wouldn’t—scale. In applications, Microsoft’s historical dominance with GitHub Copilot is also eroding. There are startups that have built more integrated code editors and scaled beyond Copilot. Microsoft has been forced to add the models of its rival Anthropic on GitHub Copilotwith a brutal cost for their margins. The company that had exclusive access to OpenAI now depends on its competitor to keep its code editor relevant. And now what. Microsoft has until 2032 before its agreement with OpenAI expires. It has Copilot with 100 million users. You have Office 365, Azure, and a business ecosystem that no one else can match. But the “great pause” of 2024 will take years to heal. The company has bet that the future of AI will be enterprise – with security and localization requirements – and not centralized in remote megacenters. You may be right. But 18 months of technology advantage is worth billions. And Microsoft just gave them away to its rivals. In Xataka | OpenAI has to pay debts of $400 billion in 2026. Nobody has the slightest idea how it is going to pay them Featured image | Simon Ray in Unsplash

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.