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

51–60 of 369 posts

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

#51

Post by e_y_ »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #46
e_y_ wrote: post #11

Earlier 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…

"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 th…

It made sense in the early days when apps were $0.99 and credit cards charged approx $0.19 + 3% per transaction (Apple likely gets better rates, but just as an approximation).

There's still a lot of apps that fall in that range, but I'd agree with you that it's completely unfair for subscriptions and more expensive apps.

Steam is probably also overcharging with their 30% cut (once upon a time that was an amazing deal compared to boxed retail) and most games are $30+ so it's a pretty hefty chunk of change. I don't necessarily agree with the exclusivity tactics taken by Epic or EA/Ubisoft but having more diverse options for buying PC games is a good thing.

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

#52

Post by nobodyshere »

_-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…

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

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

#53

Post by zorked »

DagAgren wrote: post #25
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…

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.

"App stores" were run by telcos back then. Usually a storefront selling J2ME apps via WAP and charging money to your phone bill. To be fair the most popular content was ringtones (of the MIDI type).

I think the BREW ecosystem had some solution to set up a store of this kind that they used to supply to carriers?

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

#54

Post by zyx321 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #20
e_y_ wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

Whether the market is 60:35 is favor of Apple or 60:35 in favor of Google, either way there's no real competition in the market. It's two local monopolies milking their captive audiences for everything they're worth.

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

#55

Post by e_y_ »

zorked wrote: post #53
DagAgren wrote: post #25

Earlier 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.

"App stores" were run by telcos back then. Usually a storefront selling J2ME apps via WAP and charging money to your phone bill. To be fair the most popular content was ringtones (of the MIDI type). I think the BREW ecosystem had some solution to set up a store of this kind that they used to supply to carriers?

I have to give credit to Apple for taking power away from the telcos. They wanted to nickel and dime you for every app and feature. Getting even a dumb feature phone out the door required months of certification and the OS might get an update once in the device lifetime if at all.

Sometimes it takes an 800 lb gorilla (with fresh iPod $$$$$) to take on the other 800 lb gorillas, even if it mostly meant we spent the first 8 years or so paying ridiculous 2-year contracts for "subsidized" $700 phones.

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

#56

Post by dmos62 »

dfsdfklgjljg wrote: post #43

This 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 becaus…

Off topic: I like your nickname. In that vein, here are two variations of the same sequence of keypresses shifted up and down respectivelly: "erweriotuout" and "cvxcv,.bm.mb".

While something like "4694372" is motorically meaningful to a person typing it on the keypad, or to someone watching him do it, it translates to the screen space as gibberish. Another way to put it is that when typed it has an obvious structure, but when read on the screen, the structure is prohibitively difficult to discern. That's interesting, because it's all too easy to forget that the computer as we know it today can interface with only a very small portion of our faculties.

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

#57

Post by abduhl »

dfsdfklgjljg wrote: post #43

This 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 becaus…

This is an unfair treatment of the decision. The question addressed by the court isn’t “who is the cause of supracompetitive prices?” but rather “if Apple is the cause, can consumers sue?”

Apple’s defense argued that only the app developers could sue under a certain view of the precedent where Apple’s role as a pass through is essentially transparent to the law. Their argument attempted to shift who the customer was ultimately doing business with: Apple or the app developer.

One of the theories underpinning the precedential rule is that not stopping impacted downstream parties from suing may potentially subject Apple to multiple liability. Apple argued that they were already liable to app developers so shouldn’t also be liable to consumers. The Court is saying here that that theory does not hold water because Apple, as a middleman, may be liable to both upstream and downstream parties (damages from app developers and consumers, respectively).

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

#58

Post by jfk13 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #31
vturner wrote: post #6

The 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…

The market is too small? Let's try comparing it to a more "conventional" market, like cable TV. Total iOS app store revenue is somewhere within the neighborhood of $50-100 billion per year. That puts it roughly on par with the US's cable television industry. There are about 100 million people using iPhones in the US alone. That's about twice the number of cable TV households in the US. So, it seems like the market fo…

But you had other smartphone options, and you chose to buy Apple's solution. In making that choice, you were not just buying a piece of general-purpose hand-held computing hardware, you were buying into to a specific, explicitly-curated ecosystem of software and services. Apple's gatekeeping role here was a significant part of the iPhone's value proposition. If that's not what you want, or if you think it is overpriced, why would you choose to buy it? Other devices are available.

(As someone who doesn't use either an iPhone or an Android phone, I don't really have a dog in this fight. Just an observer trying to see various points of view.)

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

#59

Post by BlueTemplar »

e_y_ wrote: post #51
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 th…

It made sense in the early days when apps were $0.99 and credit cards charged approx $0.19 + 3% per transaction (Apple likely gets better rates, but just as an approximation). There's still a lot of apps that fall in that range, but I'd agree with you that it's completely unfair for subscriptions and more expensive apps. Steam is probably also overcharging with their 30% cut (once upon a time that was an amazing deal…

The non-standard features like Steam multiplayer and mods Workshop that lock out non-Steam users pretty much forever are IMHO even worse than the 1-year exclusivity (as long as it's not retroactive).

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

#60

Post by BlueTemplar »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #20
e_y_ wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

The relevant metric is the ability to move the market. The % don't directly matter.
Post reply on HN