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 just the Apple one.
Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
41–50 of 369 posts
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#42Something odd about this argument is the fact that 30% is pretty much an industry standard. Apple isn't jacking up the price.
Industry standard compared to what? Certainly not credit card processing, which typically runs 3% to 5%. If you're referring to Google Play, well they just copied Apple. And at least on Android you can side-load.
> If you're referring to Google Play, well they just copied Apple. And at least on Android you can side-load.
It's ironic how some people seem to like saying "well they just copied Apple" and expect Google to be absolved of the actions they think are bad, but for everything else they would vehemently deny Google copying Apple.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#43This title is complete bs, and the court ruling (linked in the article) only mentions monopsony very briefly.
The question addressed by the court is regarding who is the cause of any overcharging to the customer. The opinion argues that because Apple is exclusively dealing with the customer, it is able to sell on whatever terms it wants to the customer, so any overcharge is their fault. The dissent argues that because the developer has the power to dictate the price of the app on the store, any overcharge the customer pays is directly caused by the developer, because the developer could have chosen to sell the app at a fair price.
It is true that the ruling mentions that developers may sue apple, but that was never in question. Both the opinion and dissent agree on that fact.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the only buyer of goods sold to me, and the only seller of goods sold by me, I suppose I'm running a monopsony and then some. May as well add me to the list. On a serious note: would a judgement in this case have immediate impact on other companies, or would it set a precedent? Also, what are the proposed damages? How is Apple supposed to repair the situation? Honestly, this feels entirely arbitrary (Apple is far…
It's not arbitrary, the appstore is a de-facto monopsony, the ordinary user doesn't install apps from anywhere. Most Android phones come with an alternate appstore installed (e.g. Samsung come with their own one as well as google play) and you can easily install others. To install alternates on the iPhone you have to root it.
That applies to game consoles too, since the 1980s.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we need to divide the market into specialized segments (iOS devices, luxury smartphone, etc) to make the case against Apple. They have somewhere around 50% of the global market in terms of smartphone revenue (not devices shipped). For the App Store, which is what matters to developers, revenue was around $25 billion in the first half of 2019, vs $14 billion for Google Play Store. It's not literally mono…
> They have somewhere around 50% of the global market in terms of smartphone revenue (not devices shipped). On a monopoly/monopsony theory, devices shipped is the relevant metric, and revenue isn't.
for me the relevant metric is they have the 100% of ios devices market, at least on Android you have several app stores. That is a problem for me, but one that I can't foresee a solution in the future.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#46The key point I presume is the definition of "market" here; and I'm not convinced the market "software that runs on iOS" is so large that monopwhatever can be declared there and used to justify price control. Though as a thought experiment Apple is like a wealthy landed gentleman who sets up a well maintained outdoor market for the tradesmen to bring goods and the lower classes to buy them. If Apple owns so much land…
I don't think we need to divide the market into specialized segments (iOS devices, luxury smartphone, etc) to make the case against Apple. They have somewhere around 50% of the global market in terms of smartphone revenue (not devices shipped). For the App Store, which is what matters to developers, revenue was around $25 billion in the first half of 2019, vs $14 billion for Google Play Store. It's not literally mono…
"Reasonable" would be to charge a fixed transaction fee plus a percentage that doesn't scream "dysfunctional market!".
Microsoft takes 5% for selling apps in the Windows store. That may be a bit desperate given that these stores aren't just payment services but act as merchants of record, taking care of international taxes, billing and running an actual store.
I wouldn't complain for a second if store fees were in the neighbourhood of 10% plus transaction fee.
But charging 30% irrespective of price is not reasonable by any reasonable definition of reasonable.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
To clarify, Apple takes 30% of in-app subscriptions for customers If a customer signs up and setups payment for the service outside the app, then Apple doesn't take a cut. That's why you can't buy books in the Audible iOS app, or subscribe to Netflix via the iOS app. But you can login and watch/listen to content you've already bought or subscribed to.
What is the justification for the 30% in year one, Apple's costs don't halve after one year? Sounds like they are simply hurting competitors profitability.
I think their argument is that they're providing you exposure through the App Store, so they deserve a referral fee for maintaining the App Store, reviewing apps, etc. Normally, user acquisition (getting a user to even think about installing your app the first time) is much more expensive than maintaining a subscription -- also why so many companies are pushing subscription models -- so Apple probably considers it to be worth more. There's also a higher risk of fraudulent purchases or refunds (and associated support costs) for the initial purchase than a subscription.
In the past, developers were prohibited from telling users that they could sign up cheaper on your website, allegedly to avoid user confusion; I think it was relaxed somewhat so I don't know if it's still the case.
Of course the main reason why they charge 30% for the first year is because they can, and the reason they charge 15% after that is because app/content developers have been starting to gripe about it (probably after realizing they need to make a profit and can't live entirely off VC money). It has little to no relation to how much it actually costs Apple. There's no justification for why it takes a year to get the reduced rate, instead of something like 2 months.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#48Earlier 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…
There were not really any public app stores like the Apple one. And cuts were, in general, much higher. Apple's app store took off so well because it offered a much better deal than the competition.
Sure there were in Europe.
I had plenty of J2ME and Symbian apps before iOS was even born.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were not really any public app stores like the Apple one. And cuts were, in general, much higher. Apple's app store took off so well because it offered a much better deal than the competition.
Apple's App Store didn't really have competition. The iPhone was pretty much an entirely new class of smartphone. The sheer volume of users compared to early smartphones meant you could sell an app for $1.99 and make loads of money, compared to Palm/WinMo apps that were more like $10+. It took off because it was a good experience (one stop shopping) and because of the popularity of the iPhone. And of course it doesn'…
In Europe your phone providers were also one stop shopping.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#50so: - monopoly: the only seller - monopsony: the only buyer So app store customers can only buy from apple. And the app developers can only sell to apple.
PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, sega, ... are the same: You can only sell for those devices with manufacturer licensing (that includes profit sharing and mandatory annoyances like “achievements”), and consumers can only buy games licensed by those manufacturers. The only difference is that PC developers haven’t experienced that before. It seems like this would have been established in the 80s/90s, so I’m surprised we’re…
Or maybe we could get side loading on console.