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

221–230 of 369 posts

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

#221

Post by bmarquez »

logfromblammo wrote: post #175
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…

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…

Another issue with Signal -- you can't backup your chat logs on iOS like you do on Android (chat logs are encrypted btw).

I'm not sure if that's a Signal issue or an Apple restriction.

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

#222

Post by samatman »

braythwayt wrote: post #181
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…

On reflection, I will say one thing: I consider Apple's restrictions on monetizing apps to be shenanigans. It feels normal to me for them to insist on a cut from app sales and in-app purchases. It feels like shenanigans for them to try to block developers having revenue side-channels. I know this is very uneven, for example, I can download an Amazon Prime app and use it, even though I pay for Amazon prime elsewhere.…

I agree that it's inconvenient for users; it annoys me every time I have to bounce out to the Amazon website to buy Kindle books, for example.

But I don't see the alternative from Apple's perspective. If they allowed revenue side-channels, every app would be free, and useless if you didn't purchase an expansion pack from the developer.

Sure, Apple could run the app store at a loss. They could allow side-loading. They could do a lot of things. But I don't fault them for declining to.

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

#223

Post by Quarrelsome »

scarface74 wrote: post #190
Quarrelsome wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes or Linux. Either that or change licensing so people can create Apple VMs and I can spin one up online. At the time I was looking at this problem (2012) the only viable solution was to buy a piece of Apple hardware and install it in the office and have the auto-build system call back into the office from the cloud to build the package as a particular step in the build. So I have to worry about power, about the saf…

Microsoft offers Mac build servers as part of Azure Devops. And there is Mac Mini Colo. And you want to force a company to release a product for other operating systems?

or make their OS available for virtualization. Remember this was 2012 so our entire build process was done via cloud vms and Mac's requirements were a nasty welt on an otherwise exceptionally smooth process because there were no options available at the time.

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

#224

Post by grawprog »

smhenderson wrote: post #207
grawprog wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. What about 3? Apple's products…

I don't disagree with your opinions on Apple and their products but what in your list of bad things about them is actually illegal? Apple's products are overpriced and underpowered, locked down devices sold as fashion statements or 'lifestyle' accessories that are more like toys for rich people than the miniature computers they're supposed to be. There is nothing illegal about selling rich people toys or dumbing down…

>I don't disagree with your opinions on Apple and their products but what in your list of bad things about them is actually illegal?

Where in the parent's quote that I was responding to was there anything about laws?

I was specifically responding to:

>Amusingly, there are two sets of people arguing about why Apple is bad,

I see nothing about legality. I see the word bad.

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

#225

Post by MrBeansForReal »

teekert wrote: post #170
simias wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yes, but that's like having 10 usd plan for truly unlimited in NYC alone. It's different to build mobile network for a small country. It's different to build it from Ocean to Ocean.

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

#226

Post by CoolGuySteve »

Angostura wrote: post #220
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect those messages mighty be using e-mail rather than phone number as the identifier.

So what, if iMessage is the default SMS app and it sends to an unregistered iCloud account, it should either translate to SMS or give an error.

The last thing it should do is silently send a message to an inactive account such that it looks like I ghosted the person.

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

#227

Post by blazespin »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #219
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…

"Nobody has to buy an iPhone to keep in touch with all their friends who have iPhones." If an iPhone user has friends that all use Duo on Android, she can install Duo on her iPhone. If an Android user has friends that all use iMessage or FaceTime, there is no way for her to participate in group chats or group calls.

Clearly the OP doesn't have a teenage daughter. If he did, he'd realize that you have to have an iphone in order to be accepted into the communication clique caused by iMessages / AirDrop.

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

#228

Post by scarface74 »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #223
scarface74 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft offers Mac build servers as part of Azure Devops. And there is Mac Mini Colo. And you want to force a company to release a product for other operating systems?

or make their OS available for virtualization. Remember this was 2012 so our entire build process was done via cloud vms and Mac's requirements were a nasty welt on an otherwise exceptionally smooth process because there were no options available at the time.

It is available for virtualization - on Mac hardware.

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

#229

Post by sangnoir »

scarface74 wrote: post #180
palijer wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Lot's of games openly tout cross-platform compatibility - the answer to your question is "Yes".

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

#230

Post by ubermonkey »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #214
ubermonkey wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be possible, but I see no reason to compel it. If you want other stores, use a different platform.

> If you want other stores, use a different platform. But that's the problem. They're forcing you to choose both together when it should be an independent variable. App developers also don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.

That isn't a problem, though. You're not entitled to dictate terms to the vendor here in any sense other than "I'll buy that" or "I won't buy that."

Computer developers don't get to choose which computer their customers have, either.

Seriously, I have no idea why people get so salty about this.

Post reply on HN