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

21–30 of 369 posts

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

#21

Post by stuaxo »

notduncansmith wrote: post #16
GeekyBear wrote: post #14

Next up: Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony's game consoles?

As the only buyer of goods sold to me, and the only seller of goods sold by me, I suppose I'm running a monopsony and then some. May as well add me to the list. On a serious note: would a judgement in this case have immediate impact on other companies, or would it set a precedent? Also, what are the proposed damages? How is Apple supposed to repair the situation? Honestly, this feels entirely arbitrary (Apple is far…

It's not arbitrary, the appstore is a de-facto monopsony, the ordinary user doesn't install apps from anywhere.

Most Android phones come with an alternate appstore installed (e.g. Samsung come with their own one as well as google play) and you can easily install others.

To install alternates on the iPhone you have to root it.

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

#22

Post by JamesBarney »

oleganza wrote: post #3

"Merchants at Macy's can only sell at Macy's". There are many options for you as an app developer. You can enjoy the scale and tooling provided by Apple, at one cost. Or you can write apps for any other computer at some other cost. Or you may choose not to be an app developer at all and do something else useful.

Monopsony doesn't mean option-less. Just because you can take a horse doesn't make standard oil not a monopoly.

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

#23

Post by pentae »

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.

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

#24

Post by DagAgren »

smilespray wrote: post #15
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.

I thought Apple was the originator of the 30% cut for app stores, and everybody else followed suit?

Yes, it used to be much higher before Apple.

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

#25

Post by DagAgren »

stuaxo wrote: post #17
smilespray wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Apple was the originator of the 30% cut for app stores, and everybody else followed suit?

Yes, this is true. People forget that there were phones before the iPhone decided all phones would be rectangles with touchscreens. Those phones ran apps and games, and you downloaded them from app stores... there was in fact a cambrian explosion of app stores, when you made software you had to publish it to hundreds of them. I can't remember the %, but it seems unlikely, in the fact of all that competition that it w…

There were not really any public app stores like the Apple one. And cuts were, in general, much higher. Apple's app store took off so well because it offered a much better deal than the competition.

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

#26

Post by huhtenberg »

DagAgren wrote: post #24
smilespray wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Apple was the originator of the 30% cut for app stores, and everybody else followed suit?

Yes, it used to be much higher before Apple.

What are you referring to exactly?

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

#27

Post by speedplane »

vturner wrote: post #6

The key point I presume is the definition of "market" here; and I'm not convinced the market "software that runs on iOS" is so large that monopwhatever can be declared there and used to justify price control. Though as a thought experiment Apple is like a wealthy landed gentleman who sets up a well maintained outdoor market for the tradesmen to bring goods and the lower classes to buy them. If Apple owns so much land…

Under traditional antitrust regulation, a monopoly is one that has "undue market control." The key terms here are "undue", "market", and "control", which will all be subject to tons of lawyers making a bunch of arguments.

Your point is about the "market": if the market is iOS devices, then there is no question Apple has "control". If "market" is smartphone apps, the argument gets shakier.

Antitrust violations are notoriously difficult to prove in court. Even if Apple were to lose in some iOS app antitrust case, the prospect that it leads to general B2B applications is quite negligible.

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

#29

Post by teruakohatu »

_9vpl wrote: post #8
unlinked_dll wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could if they didn't strong arm developers into giving them a cut of subscriptions. This is a major point in the Spotify antritrust suit against Apple.

To clarify, Apple takes 30% of in-app subscriptions for customers If a customer signs up and setups payment for the service outside the app, then Apple doesn't take a cut. That's why you can't buy books in the Audible iOS app, or subscribe to Netflix via the iOS app. But you can login and watch/listen to content you've already bought or subscribed to.

What is the justification for the 30% in year one, Apple's costs don't halve after one year? Sounds like they are simply hurting competitors profitability.

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

#30

Post by olliej »

m463 wrote: post #2

so: - monopoly: the only seller - monopsony: the only buyer So app store customers can only buy from apple. And the app developers can only sell to apple.

PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, sega, ... are the same:

You can only sell for those devices with manufacturer licensing (that includes profit sharing and mandatory annoyances like “achievements”), and consumers can only buy games licensed by those manufacturers.

The only difference is that PC developers haven’t experienced that before. It seems like this would have been established in the 80s/90s, so I’m surprised we’re getting to court - is there a change in judicial philosophy?

That said, as far as I can tell every platform charged the same ~30% so I’m sure any company can simply point to the entire market as having established that under fair conditions (after all, if there was a cheaper platform surely they’d prioritize that?)

Post reply on HN