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

171–180 of 369 posts

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

#171

Post by untog »

base698 wrote: post #169
untog wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’d argue... not that. It’s a pop culture reference. Beyoncé is known by people of pretty much every age group. Are you saying Gen Zers wouldn’t get the reference? Because I’m not convinced by that at all.

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

#172

Post by eyesee »

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.

When did Apple say they were going to open iMessage? I do recall Steve Jobs saying this about Facetime [1] during its announcement, and that a) it was a surprise to the team building it, and b) was abandoned when Apple was sued for patent infringement by patent troll VirnetX [2], causing them to change the protocol from peer-to-peer to server-based.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_hap... [2]: https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/16/apple-faces-440-million-...

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

#173

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #80
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.

Imagine a big city/country with only 2 stores, half of the population uses store A and half store B. Store A and B are happy with the profits and are not competing on the margins, both will take 30% of your products, both will ban your product if they judge they don't like it, maybe store A will block you if you compete with them and store B will block you because some algorithm. So basically you have 2 big pile of s…

I hope you’re not implying the old wives tale about Apple nit allowing apps that compete with it on the store. If so, there are plenty of existence proofs that that isn’t true.

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

#174

Post by julianozen »

ubermonkey wrote: post #164
julianozen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 EXAC…

Apple has lied to us to make us believe that in order to have a secure device, we have to allow them to hand review every app that goes into the store. This is a false dichotomy.

We can have alternate App Stores run by other trusted/neutral entities or app side loading or certificates and tools like gatekeeper for iOS. We can have an App Store where Apple does not censor things that don’t meet its curation preferences (like nudity, vape/weed apps and previously crypto). I don’t even understand consumers who defend apples right to make these choices on our behalf

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

This should apply to mobile too. Keep our phones secure, but give us the freedom to make our own choices

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

#175

Post by logfromblammo »

hkhanna wrote: post #86
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 aren’t Facebook. Nobody has to buy an iPhone to keep in touch with all their friends who have iPhones. I have a different perspective. Many of my different friend groups use the "group messaging" feature on their phones. If everyone is using an iPhone in that group, it defaults to using iMessage. I switched to Android about 18 months ago, and it broke all of the group text message chains I had because some of…

I once heard my spouse complaining about Signal, and how they only had it loaded on their iPhone so they could talk to me. I asked why Signal was not their default SMS application, like it is on my Android phone. And that's when I discovered that Apple hoards certain core phone features for itself.

Signal for iOS cannot send or receive ordinary SMS messages. This is a significant impediment to adoption of end-to-end encryption, because checking two applications to receive different kinds of messages is inconvenient, and inconvenience is the death of mobile applications.

And here I note that Apple is effectively punishing users for apostasy. If you leave the Apple ecosystem, you are excommunicated from your former chat contacts. I, having never entered the Apple ecosystem, have no problem being included in group chats with iPhone users. (I occasionally have problems receiving media attachments, though.)

This makes me even more wary of ever buying in, knowing that trying to leave later will cause all manner of problems as I try to reclaim functions that Apple will take over. Entering the walled gardens make me afraid of being locked in.

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

#176

Post by titanomachy »

jwr wrote: post #157
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…

> texting was and still is insanely expensive in the EU In Poland at least, SMS costs 0 in almost all plans. As for WhatsApp, I try to keep people away from it and show them Signal, as I do not trust Facebook with any of my data.

Poland has unusually cheap and good cell service, at least in the parts of the country I've visited.

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

#177

Post by CoolGuySteve »

Angostura wrote: post #143
hkhanna wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren’t Facebook. Nobody has to buy an iPhone to keep in touch with all their friends who have iPhones. I have a different perspective. Many of my different friend groups use the "group messaging" feature on their phones. If everyone is using an iPhone in that group, it defaults to using iMessage. I switched to Android about 18 months ago, and it broke all of the group text message chains I had because some of…

If anyone else is facing the issue, here's how to deregister your number from iMessage: https://selfsolve.apple.com/deregister-imessage/ Should be Job Done.

I deregistered my number and I still have messages that are delivered to my iPad instead of my android phone. If it wasn’t for that iPad next to my bed, I would have lost contact with some people entirely.

What Apple’s doing should be fucking prosecuted by the FCC or FTC. It’s outrageous.

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

#178

Post by braythwayt »

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…

We're splitting some really fine hairs here.

As a customer, I have an account with Apple. When I purchase an app, I pay Apple, and I presume they give 70% of my payment to the developer.

As a customer, it feels like a retail store. I give money to the store, but I end up in a warranty relationship with the manufacturer, much like buying something from a store.

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

#179

Post by scarface74 »

p49k wrote: post #98
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…

Apple is not like Tesla; iPhones are often touted as a “luxury brand” but the truth is that they offer products of quality that are roughly in proportion to their pricing, and their high margins are due to better/more efficient operations than their competitors. A phone is such an essential tool in one’s life and priced low enough that it makes sense to invest in a product that is of good quality. Most people can aff…

Movies - if you buy a music on iTunes from most of the major studios, you can sync your purchases with Amazon Video, Google Play Movies and Vudu using Movies Anywhere. Blame the studios that refuse to cooperate for the ones you can’t.

Music - any music you buy from iTunes has been DRM free for over a decade.

Books - if that’s a concern, buy ebooks from Amazon - like everyone else dies.

As far as buying apps, most money people spend on the App Store is either in app consumables for games or subscriptions that work cross platform.

Do you also feel that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox) and Sony should be equally regulated for controlling distribution over their digital stores? Yes you can but physical discs but even they are digitally signed and have to be approved.

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

#180

Post by scarface74 »

palijer wrote: post #105
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. Apple recently rejected our app submission as we mention our Android version within our app settings. They don't demand you be iOS exclusive, but they damn well try to make it difficult. That release was just a minor version with some fixes, the text had been in the app for years.

Can you mention a competitor when selling on any of the consoles?
Post reply on HN