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

281–290 of 369 posts

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

#281

Post by reaperducer »

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…

All Google/Android/?#_next_startup has to do is make a better phone than the iPhone, and people will flock to it. That's how Apple did it.

But currently the alternatives have many problems that cause people to choose iPhones. When those problems are overcome, the market will swing their way.

Apple is not infallible. It will screw up, or go out of fashion, or fall behind eventually. All companies do. People getting all worked up over this need to see the big picture.

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

#282

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #263
simion314 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>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?

Using this logic you should then ot have the freedom to read your emails outside Apple browser or email client on your computers, the solution is

1 let the user decide if the trusts the third party

2 for sensitive application like mail/sms/browsers review the top 5 alternative browsers/email clients etc and allow only those, I assume Apple has the ability to say discuss with Mozilla about allowing Firefox on iOS, what APIs and what privacy rules need to be respected and then have a team of lawyers ready if Mozilla breaches the contract/promises.

My point there are solutions between the extremes of not allow thrid party access and allow any random app access.

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

#283

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #275
simion314 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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)

So Apple should allow random third parties to intercept SMS messages because “people in your group” don’t use SMS?

Apple should let me decide or maybe review Thunderbird and Firefox and allow them. I am wondering how can you bring this argument and at the same time you install random apps on your computer that are not made or restricted by Apple.

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

#284

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #282
scarface74 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>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? Using this logic you should then ot have the freedom to read your emails outside Apple browser or email client on your computers, the solution is 1 let the user decide if the trusts the third party 2 for sensitive application l…

1. Right. Because historically “the user” has been very good about understanding security implications of their choices. Have you been following the PC industry for the last 30 years?

No one considers email to be secure because of if nothing else, the store and forward nature.

IMessage is end to end encrypted. Should Apple also allow third parties the ability to intercept iMessage or should they split iMessage from sms? Who does that benefit?

2. Now some developers are in a privileged position.

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

#285

Post by hrktb »

redwall_hp wrote: post #267
objclxt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

“dumbphones” had very useful and prolific apps with integrated carrier billing depending on the country.

Motorola phones might have been truely “dumb”, that wasn’t true for a Casio or a Panasonic phone for instance.

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

#286

Post by hrktb »

ksec wrote: post #187
GeekyBear wrote: post #14

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

I think that is a different to business model. Game consoles are sold at break even or loss leader. That is why EPIC wasn't against the 30% cut from Games on Consoles. Although it is likely Apple has started to "subsidise" some of its iPhone margin in 2019 with its Services Revenue. And likely continue to do so in 2020 and onwards.

Business model is different but the situation from the consumer and developper point of view is the same.

There was a good interview in the vergecast with a lawyer preparing the case against Apple. The answer to “is it a different case for console ?” was more in the vain of “let’s do this case first”.

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

#287

Post by briffle »

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 have a stranglehold over vendors.

They flat out don't allow bloatware from the vendors on their devices. Android doesn't have that kind of pull, and Verizon won't push updates for my phone until they have tested all their bloatware crap that I can't uninstall.

Additionally, Apple has had many other 'requirements' from vendors to keep selling their phone, things like visual voicemail support, allowing them to use iMessage in place of texting (really goes with the part above), requiring ipv6 support, etc.

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

#288

Post by braythwayt »

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.

I have an adolescent daughter. She laughs at me being a fuddy-duddy wanting to use iMessage and FaceTime. Her friends are all on Discourse and TikTok(!)

N=1 and all that, I can totally believe that there are other social clusters on different ecosystems.

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

#289

Post by 52-6F-62 »

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…

> and means I don't have to sysadmin my telephone.

This is exactly why I've stuck with Apple for my phone. I don't upgrade every year and all that nonsense, but I prefer their ecosystem for just that reason.

I don't want to use my phone that much that I would want to load all kinds of different software onto it, especially if it compromises the privacy and security in any way.

I even consider the limited software a feature in that way.

The simplicity is what I like about it.

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

#290

Post by nobodyshere »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #63
nobodyshere wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be just enough to allow people to install third party apps without having to use app store.

Lol, how is that working out on Android ?

Just fine, actually.
Post reply on HN