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

261–270 of 369 posts

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

#261

Post by riversflow »

blazespin wrote: post #227
rahimnathwani wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

How is this different from game consoles? The gap between Xbox Live and PlayStation Network was a big deal when I was in high school. If all your friends played Xbox, and your parents got you a PlayStation, you were socially isolated. Nobody is saying that MS and Sony must make everything 100% cross-platform compatible, but then there aren’t tens of thousands of indie game developers to complain about it.

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

#262

Post by henryfjordan »

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…

You open with a false-dichotomoy. Apple is not a monopolist in the phone market (your first proposed argument). Apple is a monopolist of the app store (your second proposed argument).

Those 2 positions are not mutually-exclusive.

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

#263

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #256
scarface74 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You really think that it only took “months” for Apple to create the Siri Intent for third party audio? Apple had been opening up Siri for years by adding new intents.

Apple has a long history of developing functionality and using it internally before releasing them publicly. The alternative is releasing a half baked API that it has to support forever. It’s a lot easier to change an API that is only used internally than it is to change an API which people depend on.

Yes, Apple produced a better solution than allowing random third parties the ability to record everything you do on your phone. Would you prefer that they never increase privacy and security?

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

#264

Post by henryfjordan »

zbyte64 wrote: post #215
ldoughty wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda miss the point of the article, which focused on monopsony -- sole buyer. If your want to sell on the east coast (Apple), you need to put your product in wooden boxes no larger than X and documentation must be written in French, and you must have 10 employees that speak French. If you want to sell to the West coast, you put your product in plastic bags, and everything is in Spanish, and your employees need to sp…

Bingo. All this talk about market shares is not about monopsony. Arguably Android is also monopsony.

Google does not restrict you from installing arbitrary apps or building your own App Store to compete with Google Play though.

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

#265

Post by zamalek »

kerkeslager wrote: post #139
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…

> 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? Well, t…

Yup.

You cannot install a 3rd-party app store on iPhones without resorting to strange hacks (which are likely outside the scope of the EULA and wouldn't be pursued by average users). Developers and users have no alternative but to pay Apple 30%. If you are an open source project, someone has to pay up each year for the privilege of developing software for Apple devices.

Windows, Linux and Android allow 3rd-party appstores. As evil as Google is, they certainly have that feather in their cap.

Apple likely wouldn't have been facing this lawsuit if they hadn't kept pressing their advantage and tightening the noose on developers.

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

#266

Post by riversflow »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #191
scarface74 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mon…

> Do you also feel that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox) and Sony should be equally regulated for controlling distribution over their digital stores? It's not about what they put in their own store. It's about not allowing competing stores. And game consoles shouldn't be allowed to do it either.

I don’t understand the argument for why consumers shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a closed platform. I specifically like Apple products because of the controlled software distribution that’s a huge value add for me. I purchase their products for my parents and know that they can’t mess it up, and I won’t have to troubleshoot their product. Apple isn’t just selling a product but an experience—an experience many people like I might add.

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

#267

Post by redwall_hp »

objclxt wrote: post #68
stuaxo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I can't remember the %, but it seems unlikely, in the fact of all that competition that it was as high as 30%. Many of the J2ME etc app stores prior to Apple were run by network carriers, and their cuts were considerably higher than 30% - upwards of 50%, even more for things like direct carrier billing (the app would be charged to your phone bill).

Wouldn't Palm, Windows CE and Newton be a better analogue than dumbphones? The original iPhone had more in common with PDAs and the first wave of smartphones (Nokia N800 et al) than with little Motorola flip phones.

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

#268

Post by nemothekid »

mooman219 wrote: post #252
GeekyBear wrote: post #14

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

And that would be a good thing. Why would anyone argue to have less control over the hardware they purchased?

Because there was the very real threat of piracy and poor quality control destroying the console industry. The crash of 1983 and the Dreamcast are the industry poster boys of why open consoles are a bad thing™.

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

#269

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#270

Post by runeks »

So, via legislation (e.g. DMCA), we give Apple the right to tightly control the use of its “intellectual property” (the iOS software), which results in Apple being the only entity that can legally offer iOS apps for purchase.

And now, via legislation, we want to remove this power, first given to them via some other legislation.

How about we critically assess current legislation, instead of just piling more on top of it?

Post reply on HN