[hackinthebochs]

The analogy doesn't really work because cryptocurrencies aren't interchangeable the way phones are. A better analogy would be if each phone could only talk to people using the same phone brand. If everyone is on iphone and you need an iphone to talk to anyone you care about, the iphone becomes more valuable because of its scarcity. The network effects of bitcoin and the lack of interchangeability between different cryptocurrencies helps secure bitcoin's spot as the leader.

[notahacker]

But people almost invariably don't need BTC to transact with people they care about (the number of people with BTC denominated payment obligations is relatively small, and most stuff that can be bought with BTC can be bought with other methods). And as flawed as many exchanges may be, they make cryptocurrencies very interchangeable, especially compared with phones.

Blackberry actually did have a proprietary messaging system, it just wasn't anywhere near enough lockin because most people used Blackberry for other reasons, the non-proprietary messaging layers were actually better and Blackberry's popularity turned out to be nearly all down to being first in class.

[jeremyjh]

This would be true if Bitcoin transaction fees put it in reach of every-day transactions, but they don't and likely never will. Bitcoin is for HODLing, not for transacting.

[swagonomixxx]

Bitcoin can be used for transacting if you're not looking for instantly verified transactions.

In ye olden days, when Bitcoin was a few cents worth, transaction costs were tiny. I really doubt Satoshi et al predicted Bitcoin to be so unstable, so as to make transaction costs pretty much out of reach for 99% of normal everyday transactions.