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

361–369 of 369 posts

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

#361

Post by Quarrelsome »

scarface74 wrote: post #359
Quarrelsome wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a windows build server to build a windows app, its just an executable that targets a given cpu architecture or run-time. Its not about affording a Mac Mini its about being forced to do IT on some build servers when the rest are visualised in the cloud. Having your cloud servers ping back into your physical office to do the Mac build is stupid. For context, this is an online service where we wanted to b…

You don't need a windows build server to build a windows app, its just an executable that targets a given cpu architecture or run-time. Have you tried building a native or .Net Framework app on a Linux machine? How did that work out? Its not about affording a Mac Mini its about being forced to do IT on some build servers when the rest are visualised in the cloud. Having your cloud servers ping back into your physical…

> Have you tried building a native or .Net Framework app on a Linux machine? How did that work out?

Well now we have .NET core so its fine but previously one can C, one can C++. Its not always ideal but there are options.

This issue is that if my highly public office with full glass windows in a somewhat shady part of town gets a power cut or broken into then I've got to run around to find another mac. Even if the network goes down I have issues that happen WAY less on the cloud. Its annoying.

What's more annoying is that there's no solid technical justification as to why this is. They just want Apple hardware to sign their builds because they want you to buy Apple hardware.

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

#362

Post by nhumrich »

ubermonkey wrote: post #347
nhumrich wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you get to choose who to trust and who not to. If you dont trust "3rd party app store" then dont use it. The whole point of monopoly (or monopsoly) powers and why they are bad isnt because of now , its because of tomorrow. You buy a device, fully trusting apple. Its your device, you own it, you trust apple. Tomorrow, you find out that company-you-dont-trust is a partner with apple, and the entire app store is pot…

But there IS another option, so your argument falls apart.

Which is what? Use a different phone? Thats not always an option except maybe to the priveledged

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

#363

Post by ldoughty »

unishark wrote: post #322
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…

I see no problem here until you also presume the firms are a monopoly (or oligopoly). Otherwise there are still customers served by someone else. There are thousands of stores in the US, maybe millions. As for as I know each may make whatever silly demands they want of me (perhaps aside from some racial/religious/safety constraints)) in order to stick my products on their shelves for their "unique customers". Further…

Yes and no...

The issue here is that there's no competition if you want to reach Apple customers.

When you buy a fridge, the manufacturer can't forbid you from buying eggs for it.

You can go to another manufacturer, as a customer, if this really bothers you... But the guy selling eggs has virtually no recourse. In addition, he has no negotiation power. His eggs might only be stored inside that manufacturers fridge, too, so the lock out from that customer market could destroy the business!

As for regulations... Who's regulating internet browser? The only regulation is that your OS can't forbid alternatives or actively block or hamper their installation. That's worked reasonably fine. We don't get that with app stores on Apple (though Android does, for the most part)

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

#364

Post by GeekyBear »

anon98356 wrote: post #360
GeekyBear wrote: post #14

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

While their consoles still support physical media they aren't monopsonies. A monopsony is a single buyer. As a game developer you have the choice to sell on the xbox store or get physical discs printed and sell them either through a retailer e.g. amazon, or directly from your own site if you wanted. If/when they produce a generation of consoles that don't support physical media things will probably start to get a lot…

You must have Microsoft's approval and pay them a cut before your software will work on their console, physical disk or not.

Exactly as is the case with iOS, Nintendo, or PlayStation.

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

#365

Post by anon98356 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #364
anon98356 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While their consoles still support physical media they aren't monopsonies. A monopsony is a single buyer. As a game developer you have the choice to sell on the xbox store or get physical discs printed and sell them either through a retailer e.g. amazon, or directly from your own site if you wanted. If/when they produce a generation of consoles that don't support physical media things will probably start to get a lot…

You must have Microsoft's approval and pay them a cut before your software will work on their console, physical disk or not. Exactly as is the case with iOS, Nintendo, or PlayStation.

But in the case of Microsoft, Nintendo and PlayStation those aren't (necessarily) the only costs of selling. If I choose to, I might decide to exclusively distribute through Amazon, who will take their own cut of the sale price (or cost price depending on the arrangement). Or I might decide to distribute through Walmart as well at a different cost to me. In all cases I have to pay Microsoft(or Nintendo or Sony) but I get to decide, overall that I make more money selling it on Amazon and paying them than selling it myself.

What this boils down to is, what my options are when selling my game. On Xbox, Nintendo Switch and PlayStation I have choice over how I sell my game and can choose different avenues that have different pros and cons (More sales with Amazon, but less profit per copy sold vs. More profit per copy, but less sales when sold direct). With iOS you don't have that choice, hence they are a single buyer.

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

#366

Post by unishark »

ldoughty wrote: post #363
unishark wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no problem here until you also presume the firms are a monopoly (or oligopoly). Otherwise there are still customers served by someone else. There are thousands of stores in the US, maybe millions. As for as I know each may make whatever silly demands they want of me (perhaps aside from some racial/religious/safety constraints)) in order to stick my products on their shelves for their "unique customers". Further…

Yes and no... The issue here is that there's no competition if you want to reach Apple customers. When you buy a fridge, the manufacturer can't forbid you from buying eggs for it. You can go to another manufacturer, as a customer, if this really bothers you... But the guy selling eggs has virtually no recourse. In addition, he has no negotiation power. His eggs might only be stored inside that manufacturers fridge, t…

If the fridge manufacturer goes bankrupt or changes how cold their fridge can get, I also go out of business in this contrived example. Do you also want to regulate these business decisions too? Shall the regulators intervene every time there is an ios update?

A better analogy is I produce aftermarket software/hardware for the refrigerator and want to force them to accommodate it (with the govt stepping in to determine which kinds of features they can and can't add on their own, e.g. browsers) and even sell it to customers for me.

As for your last question, the browser is the regulation. It is a very specific software product. In the case of apps, there is an open-ended range of function. Regulators must determine in detail which of these are to be protected. Presumably they must allow apple to block some apps like (easily-categorized) malware, but what about borderline and controversial decisions based on quality or ethics? Regulators are now deciding the detailed functionality of the product and preventing apple from differentiating their product. Shouldn't consumer choice be the deciding factor instead?

And as for browsers, again Microsoft was supposedly a monopoly. Not just their own niche store, but most of the entire market for OS's.

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

#367

Post by jscotto »

ldoughty wrote: post #117
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…

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…

Hi, this is completely off topic but I wanted to reach out. In fact, I'm not even sure if it's within the rules to be doing this, but anyway- you mentioned you were looking for junior help and that you had a lot of side projects on the Senior Meets Junior post.

I am a junior dev looking for experience. I am currently working on building a career in web development. I am already employed, however I do not work as a dev full time (yet).

I'd love to connect if you are still looking for work and to see if we can mutually benefit each other.

email: jayjscotto@gmail.com

portfolio: https://jasonscotto.com

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

#368

Post by thekyle »

dpkonofa wrote: post #357
thekyle wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Voice doesn't use the SIM card in the phone to send SMS so it can bypass any of Apples API restrictions.

How does that matter? Signal doesn't have to use the SIM card either.

Because most people probably want to use their existing phone number which is tied to their SIM card.

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

#369

Post by traeblain »

Twisell wrote: post #167
untog wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could open up iMessage, which they originally said they were going to do, then stopped talking about it entirely. Even if they didn’t want to open it up they could make an iMessage Android app, like their Apple Music app.

Feel free to thanks VirnetX about that... https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17222380/apple-virtnetx-p... It tough to blame Apple for not open-sourcing a protocol they are sued about by a patent troll. Until resolved properly this would be a toxic code-base anyway. Of course they could restart from scratch, but I guess they have no incentive to make efforts about that. What will be meaningful however is be what they'…

Apple just finished closing down (pretty sure) all their stores in the East District of TX so all these suits can no longer be filed there. Might help conclude a bunch of these...or not...it's a ton of money we're talking about.
Post reply on HN