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

251–260 of 369 posts

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

#251

Post by viklove »

Zenst wrote: post #137
_-dobe-_ wrote: post #41

In the EU we had a ruling that forced Microsoft to offer choices for web browsers when installing Windows for the first time. I.e. IE wasn't set as the default browser by default. They were forced to do this for 5 years, I think so people become aware that there are other choices out there besides IE. They should do the same for the AppStore. When you set up your iPhone, it should give you an option of AppStores, not…

But you have that choice at purchase. Hence this aspect does feel akin to somebody buying a Tesla and the customer expecting the ability to switch to diesel, petrol instead of being stuck with electric. Also remember how long that Microsoft rulling took and what it actualy ended-up being in the end - which for most was an annoying popup for those who already knew how to change web browsers. These days what happens is…

It's more like only being able to use Tesla rims and tires if you want to replace the stock ones. Or only being able to put Tesla coffee in the cup holder.

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

#253

Post by naikrovek »

scarface74 wrote: post #189
ernesth wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 80s, the game console makers did not operate the store where you were buying games. Even, you could buy second-hand games without Atari or Nintendo receiving any part of the fee!

Even back in the 80s, the console makers “controlled distribution”. Nintendo forced third parties to use their manufacturing facilities and they all force third parties to distribute their haves with a license key. Console makers have always forced third parties to pay a fee to distribute their games.

Yes, and for distribution, that's fine.

The ruling is less about Apple forcing consumers to buy only through the AppStore, and more about only allowing sellers to sell through the AppStore.

If I make a PS4 game, or a Nintendo Switch game, I can sell it on the PSN store and/or Nintendo e-Shop, sure, but I can also produce a physical copy that I can obtain outside of the store, and that is definitely not the case for Apple software developers.

Apple software developers MUST go through the AppStore and they MUST pay that fee, no matter what.

It is that specific lack of competition; the lack of other places to sell your iOS applications, that the USSC judged against, by my reading.

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

#254

Post by scarface74 »

naikrovek wrote: post #253
scarface74 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even back in the 80s, the console makers “controlled distribution”. Nintendo forced third parties to use their manufacturing facilities and they all force third parties to distribute their haves with a license key. Console makers have always forced third parties to pay a fee to distribute their games.

Yes, and for distribution, that's fine. The ruling is less about Apple forcing consumers to buy only through the AppStore, and more about only allowing sellers to sell through the AppStore. If I make a PS4 game, or a Nintendo Switch game, I can sell it on the PSN store and/or Nintendo e-Shop, sure, but I can also produce a physical copy that I can obtain outside of the store, and that is definitely not the case for A…

What’s the practical difference? The console makers still control physical distribution by forcing third parties to obtain a key, they have to approve all software that goes on their console, and they get a cut of each game sold.

Today, almost all games have an online component - that only work on console controlled networks.

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

#255

Post by ShroudedNight »

mcv wrote: post #89
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.

Large supermarket chains are absolutely a great example of monopsony power. Producers selling to the supermarket often can't choose their own price. The supermarket can decide the price, and if the producer doesn't like it, he gets to sell nothing at all, even if the actual customers do like the product. And supermarkets absolutely use this power. I've heard of supermarkets deciding to discount certain items against…

The stories I've heard are worse than this. You establish a contract to sell your product for $x, they don't pay you until you believe the only money you'll ever see is from a lawsuit, then they demand you take $y, where y is significantly less than x, and if you don't like it, you can sue them, at which point they'll boycott all your other products too.

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

#256

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #250
simion314 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean browsers, then there was an app that did some phone activity tracking and all was fine until iOS had it's own app and for some reason the old app was kicked out from the store. Then there are the cases where Apple apps have special access to APIs but a popular application like Spotify was denied access. Can you link to the case you are mentioning?

The app that did “phone activity tracking” used an MDM and tracked all of your activity and stored it. This was a severe privacy concern. Spotify - was complaining that there was no facility to integrate with Siri - Apple added intents in iOS 13. Spotify also complained that they couldn’t do music streaming on watchOS - that was also added in the latest version of watchOS.

For the first case Apple knew about the tracking and said nothing until they had their own app - so we can defend Apple that protects the users privacy only if it benefits them.

Spotify got access months alter after complaints to the EU were made so I am not convinced that Apple is still give equal opportunities to all developers especially when better browser engines exist and you can't use them.

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

#257

Post by bduerst »

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 was like Tesla in 2009.

Now the only way that Apple is like Tesla is if Tesla was also a utilities company that managed powerplants, which had a different pricing scheme for it's car customers.

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

#258

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #212
rickdeckard wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those are actually available, because iOS browsers are not allowed to use other browser-engines than Safari and apps have no means to manage SMS on behalf of the iOS messaging app.

Allowing third parties to intercept your SMS messages has been a security nightmare for Android. But yes you can install a third party app like Google Voice with its own phone number and send text messages through it. You would really trust any third party to intercept your sms messages? On top of that, the third party dialer integrates with the native dialer and call history.

>You would really trust any third party to intercept your sms messages?

Not OP but I trust Thunderbird on my PC to access my emails so why I could not also trust a Mozilla or other trustworthy company to access my messages on my phone where in my case the SMS is used by companies to send me notifications about billing , I am the type of person that will call someone(people in my group don't send SMS)

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

#259

Post by pb7 »

grawprog wrote: post #204
xenadu02 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> underpowered Are you positing that someone manufactures a better and faster SOC for mobile devices?

>And then there's the whole culture of snobbery surrounding Apple and their products that has existed since at least the mid-late 90's about how superior Apple products are to everything else always that's just kind of grated on me...well since then. >Are you positing that someone manufactures a better and faster SOC for mobile devices? Thanks for proving my point.

Please make a better effort at defending your arguments than this.

Apple has had the best real world performance on mobile for many years running. Their SOCs are years ahead of the competition. Bigger numbers on the spec sheet lack strong correlation to actual performance these days.

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

#260

Post by jtuente »

danaris wrote: post #96
mikece wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inability to augment the MacBook Pro is a bigger pain. With my 3 year old Lenovo P50 I can swap BOTH NVMe slots, upgrade the RAM, etc. With the MacBook Pro I can only buy USB-C cables and adapters. Your point about six-figure cars is a good one. I can either spend $90k to $120k on a car to drive to work that's super quiet on the inside, or spend $12k on a used Accord and another $400 on the top-flight Bose noise-…

You can use the same Bose headphones with your MacBook, y'know, and they aren't any more a modification of the MacBook than they are of the Accord. You can also plug in external Thunderbolt SSDs that are effectively indistinguishable from an internal in terms of speed. Your analogy kinda falls apart there. But if upgradeability and replaceable parts are your #1 concern, then...yeah, you're not in the target market fo…

You can use the same (oil) with your (Bugatti), y'know, and they aren't any more a modification of the (Bugatti) than they are of the Accord. You can also (put on racing tires) that are effectively indistinguishable from an (all seasons) in terms of (legal speed limit).

But if upgradeability and replaceable parts are your #1 concern, then...yeah, you're not in the target market for a (Bugatti). So that means that it's unlikely you'd ever have been looking at having a (Bugatti) be your (daily driver) in the first place—if you needed one to (race), it would be a secondary machine, where you'd probably set up your (race specs), (tune the engine), (lower the suspension), and test it, then go back to the (car) you actually enjoy using for the rest. Maybe look into a (Maserati)?

Post reply on HN