Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 369 posts

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#161

Post by skinkestek »

asutekku wrote: post #115
swebs wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really know anyone that uses Whatsapp in Finland. Most of my friends use Telegram these days.

Literally everyone outside of tech bubble. In the university i’m affiliated with and the companies i’ve worked with, only IT people use Telegram. Everyone else still defaults to whatsapp.

Another datapoint, from Norway:

Everyone of my closest friends use Telegram. I share a number of groups with 300-400 people (family, extended family, organizations I belong to/contribute to etc).

Last time I got a message on WhatsApp was from an ex-colleague 2 years ago or something. With my new phone I didn't even bother installing it.

That said: none of my current colleagues (in tech) uses Telegram or WhatsApp for that matter.

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#162

Post by robbrown451 »

braythwayt wrote: post #67

Amusingly, there are two sets of people arguing about why Apple is bad, and each have their own argument: 1. Android sells more, and offers more variety of mobile and wearable devices than Apple. And here’s the data to prove it. 2. Apple is a monopoly/monopsony and should be forced to allow more user choice of apps, allow sideloading, lower their prices, lower their app store cut, &c. Which one is is? Apple is like T…

"But how is it their fault that app developers don’t shun them for Android-only, or Windows (do they still make a phone OS?)"

Antitrust enforcement isn't really about "fault". It's not there to punish, it is there to force markets to be more competitive.

Saying that people can develop for Android, so this isn't monopsony/monopoly is sort of like saying Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly because people still could use coal and steam power rather than Standard Oil's petroleum.

While many things about iPhone and Android phones are similar, there are also a huge amount of differences that put huge barriers to going from one to the other.

Network monopolies are complex things, and they aren't about people being able to charge "whatever they like." They are about significantly reduced competition and significant barriers to competitors. Not everything has to be so black and white.

"Apple is like Tesla."

Not really, particularly not in the respects that this article is about. For a consumer, going from a Tesla to another EV is not a big deal. Also, EV's are in their infancy, and antitrust enforcement tends to cut some slack when that is true. Tesla could (very reasonably) end up being forced to separate their car business from their charging network when they get big enough.

"They aren’t Facebook. Nobody has to buy an iPhone to keep in touch with all their friends who have iPhones."

This isn't what the article is about. This is about the developer side of things, not the consumer side. Developers spend huge amounts of resources writing code that runs on only Apple devices. A very large number of users have iOS devices, not Android devices, and they only way to make apps for them is via the Apple store. Yes you can choose to develop for Android, but aside from the cost of switching, you are now selling to a completely different set of people.

For another analogy, imagine you're a clothing manufacturer, but if you want to sell clothing to women, you have to sell it through a single retail store chain. Saying "you can always make clothing for men" isn't particularly helpful.

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#163

Post by jfengel »

belorn wrote: post #127
braythwayt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopsony is a slippery concept. If I tilt my head just right, we could be discussing the way WalMart purchases products. They sell a product in their store, they decide they want a certain margin, and then they tell suppliers to meet a certain price target if they want their products in WalMart.

The difference is that walmart actually purchase the products that they sell in their store. They are a reseller. A more accurate comparison is a market hall which permit sellers to set up booths in return for a cut of the revenues. As an example I would look at stores around Olympics games, where the organizers holds enormous power in controlling who get to sell what, the price and the cut. The level of control they…

It's not quite true that Walmart purchases products. Walmart's arrangements keep a lot of the risk on the supplier. They charge for warehousing and distribution, and they don't pay for what doesn't get sold.

It is, in a lot of ways, like the market model you suggest. Not precisely; it is its own thing (and is popular precisely because it's so innovative in its business model, which lowers prices for its customers). So analogies with Walmart are always going to be problematic, but it's worth noting that their model is very different from the simple retail-reseller model.

https://spendmatters.com/2015/09/16/what-the-new-wal-mart-st...

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#164

Post by ubermonkey »

julianozen wrote: post #118
braythwayt wrote: post #67

Amusingly, there are two sets of people arguing about why Apple is bad, and each have their own argument: 1. Android sells more, and offers more variety of mobile and wearable devices than Apple. And here’s the data to prove it. 2. Apple is a monopoly/monopsony and should be forced to allow more user choice of apps, allow sideloading, lower their prices, lower their app store cut, &c. Which one is is? Apple is like T…

While this is certainly true, computers and especially mobile ones need to allow consumers to run whatever software they want period. While in the US, it becomes a small inconvenience for us that companies like Netflix and Spotify are having their business sidelined by apple, Apples lock on phones becomes a human rights issue in places like Hong Kong, Russia and Saudi Arabia when Apple complies with local regulation.…

>While this is certainly true, computers and especially mobile ones need to allow consumers to run whatever software they want period.

GOOD LORD NO.

Apple's curation of the iOS environment is a FEATURE for me, not a bug. It leads to drastically increased stability and security, and means I don't have to sysadmin my telephone.

I'll fight whoever suggests this is a good model for the desktop, but on the phone it's EXACTLY what I want.

>While consumers with money have the choice to leave iPhone and go with Android

Uh, no. Android phones are generally CHEAPER, so why does it take "money" to leave iOS?

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#165

Post by pjc50 »

teekert wrote: post #97
joefourier wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only heard of this happening in the US and Canada. Outside of North America, everyone uses Whatsapp, which supports group messaging on every platform. I'd be curious to know why it hasn't penetrated into those countries.

I think it has to do with the fact that the US (and Canada) very early on had unlimited texting plans, and iMessage would make use of that (iPhones just send texts for iMessages in absence of a data connection). WhatsApp can only use data, which is cheaper and used to be unlimited (that's gone) in the EU. In contrast, texting was and still is insanely expensive in the EU (per byte it is staggering even, compared to n…

Texting plans got huge allowances early on in the UK. I don't remember ever seeing unlimited data plans. However, the thing that was really expensive was "multimedia" messages (MMS), and occasionally you'd generate one of these by mistake by including an emoji in an SMS then suddenly be charged a whole pound for it.

International texting is expensive though, while it's free in Whatsapp. Which is why it took off among various diasporas.

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#166

Post by Quarrelsome »

braythwayt wrote: post #67

Amusingly, there are two sets of people arguing about why Apple is bad, and each have their own argument: 1. Android sells more, and offers more variety of mobile and wearable devices than Apple. And here’s the data to prove it. 2. Apple is a monopoly/monopsony and should be forced to allow more user choice of apps, allow sideloading, lower their prices, lower their app store cut, &c. Which one is is? Apple is like T…

> They don’t tell developers that apps must be iOS-exclusive to be in the app store.

They do force us to build the package on their devices though. Which is a wholly arbitrary demand which is frustrating to map into a build process that is already automated on the cloud. Prior to services that rent out Apple devices its an awkward fit.

They're very aggressive with their posturing and they ruthlessly exploit the power they have. Just reading the dev EULA in full is evidence of that.

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#167

Post by Twisell »

untog wrote: post #158
Spivak wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that SMS group messages suck isn't something that Apple can really fix without an oob protocol which would basically be iMessage again.

They could open up iMessage, which they originally said they were going to do, then stopped talking about it entirely. Even if they didn’t want to open it up they could make an iMessage Android app, like their Apple Music app.

Feel free to thanks VirnetX about that... https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17222380/apple-virtnetx-p...

It tough to blame Apple for not open-sourcing a protocol they are sued about by a patent troll. Until resolved properly this would be a toxic code-base anyway.

Of course they could restart from scratch, but I guess they have no incentive to make efforts about that. What will be meaningful however is be what they'll do after patent exhaustion date of infringed VirnetX "patents".

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#168

Post by falcolas »

pentae wrote: post #23
lilyball wrote: post #9

Something odd about this argument is the fact that 30% is pretty much an industry standard. Apple isn't jacking up the price.

Industry standard compared to what? Certainly not credit card processing, which typically runs 3% to 5%. If you're referring to Google Play, well they just copied Apple. And at least on Android you can side-load.

Sony. Microsoft. Steam. Nintendo. Many physical retailers.

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#169

Post by base698 »

untog wrote: post #156
splintercell wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

Counter point: no.

I'd argue it's an attempt to appeal to 30 and 40 somethings who feel out of the cool demo. It's praying on their insecurities by allowing the reader to think, "I know Beyonce, I'm still cool."

Definitely isn't an appeal to wider community--specifically targeted to NPRs demo.

Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it

#170

Post by teekert »

simias wrote: post #134
teekert wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to do with the fact that the US (and Canada) very early on had unlimited texting plans, and iMessage would make use of that (iPhones just send texts for iMessages in absence of a data connection). WhatsApp can only use data, which is cheaper and used to be unlimited (that's gone) in the EU. In contrast, texting was and still is insanely expensive in the EU (per byte it is staggering even, compared to n…

>WhatsApp can only use data, which is cheaper and used to be unlimited (that's gone) in the EU. In contrast, texting was and still is insanely expensive in the EU (per byte it is staggering even, compared to normal data). You need to specify where in the EU, because it doesn't mirror my experience in France for instance. Data used to be very expensive while there were no shortages of plans with near-unlimited texts.…

In the Netherlands 10 euro for truly unlimited was commonplace. I held on to that plan from 2011 until last year, when they decide I couldn't have 4G and unlimited data.
Post reply on HN