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

71–80 of 369 posts

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

#71

Post by ksec »

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…

Agree on most if not all points but the article didn't argue against any of that. It did point out two things.

Companies don't have to literally be the only buyer in a marketplace to wield "monopsony power." If competition isn't perfect — like when there are only a few companies in a market and they aren't undercutting each other's prices — companies gain some ability to lower the price on the stuff they buy. Sellers don't have a lot of other options.

Apple might be profiting from its monopsony power in the app market. In this argument, the company is effectively the sole buyer of Apple-compatible apps and services, which allows them to set their fee as high as they want.

Both of this are new argument from "monopsony" perspective, which is different to all your listed point above are "monopoly" perspective.

Not saying I agree or disagree with his monopsony thing, since it is completely new word to me.

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

#72

Post by friendlybus »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #59
e_y_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Steam multiplayer? You mean the friends list? Steam doesn't provide hosted mp servers for games. Mods are made by community members that can be released anywhere. Workshop is just a distribution channel.

Battle.net and origin are lock in services. Nothing about them is open to the public or accessible. Steam is pretty open and reasonably successful at it.

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

#73

Post by braythwayt »

ksec wrote: post #71
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…

Agree on most if not all points but the article didn't argue against any of that. It did point out two things. Companies don't have to literally be the only buyer in a marketplace to wield "monopsony power." If competition isn't perfect — like when there are only a few companies in a market and they aren't undercutting each other's prices — companies gain some ability to lower the price on the stuff they buy. Sellers…

Monopsony is a slippery concept.

If I tilt my head just right, we could be discussing the way WalMart purchases products. They sell a product in their store, they decide they want a certain margin, and then they tell suppliers to meet a certain price target if they want their products in WalMart.

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

#74

Post by lotsofpulp »

teruakohatu wrote: post #29
_9vpl wrote: post #8

Earlier 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.

What is the justification for a doctor making $500k? For a programmer making $500k? For a hotel maid making $30k? Supply and demand. Same with the App Store.

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

#75

Post by friendlybus »

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…

Steam's store page promotions provides up to 80% of the revenue for indie games. 30% is a steal for what they offer. Discord nitro offered a selection of games along with its premium subscription. People would take the subscription for the chat features and very few if any played the games offered with it, to the point where discord just cut the games out. Nobody cared.

I've spoken to a few silicon valley guys who believe steam will be disrupted, but I just don't see it at all. Epic has a chance because of fortnite users. Steam was built on hl2, epic on fortnite. Features and cut %s aren't the deciding factor.

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

#76

Post by ksec »

braythwayt wrote: post #73
ksec wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on most if not all points but the article didn't argue against any of that. It did point out two things. Companies don't have to literally be the only buyer in a marketplace to wield "monopsony power." If competition isn't perfect — like when there are only a few companies in a market and they aren't undercutting each other's prices — companies gain some ability to lower the price on the stuff they buy. Sellers…

Monopsony is a slippery concept. If I tilt my head just right, we could be discussing the way WalMart purchases products. They sell a product in their store, they decide they want a certain margin, and then they tell suppliers to meet a certain price target if they want their products in WalMart.

You can buy 90% of products in Walmart through other channels. ( 10% are either exclusive or own brand ) And Walmart is not the sole buyer of any of those products.

Apple is the sole buyer of All App Store Products, and you cant buy those products anywhere else. Which as far as I understand it, is what the argument Monopsony is trying to make. Buying Power instead of Market Power.

Edit: After rereading the article, the start of the article also pointed out, it was the developer that set the price of the App, not Apple. Giving them the power to price their product. Even if Apple were in this "Monopsony", it isn't really evident to me how this had harmed consumer.

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

#77

Post by mikece »

Having Apple take a 30% cut of sales in exchange for not having to run an e-commerce operation is far less odious than having to pay $5,000 for a MacBook Pro which has less RAM, a smaller SSD, and less powerful processor than $2,500 worth of Dell, Lenovo, HP, or Acer gear. The hardware is the real rip-off to me. I would gladly pay a reasonable fee if I could write my apps in VS Code on Debian and then ship the code to an Apple service to compile the code.

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

#78

Post by monkin »

teruakohatu wrote: post #29
_9vpl wrote: post #8

Earlier 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.

Justification is the same as Google's: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

I really don't get why everyone is bashing Apple for this like everyone else is doing the same thing. Yes, we can argue about openness of Google Play Store, but it's also full of malware, crapware, shitware and other BADware. ;)

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

#79

Post by thaumasiotes »

braythwayt wrote: post #73
ksec wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on most if not all points but the article didn't argue against any of that. It did point out two things. Companies don't have to literally be the only buyer in a marketplace to wield "monopsony power." If competition isn't perfect — like when there are only a few companies in a market and they aren't undercutting each other's prices — companies gain some ability to lower the price on the stuff they buy. Sellers…

Monopsony is a slippery concept. If I tilt my head just right, we could be discussing the way WalMart purchases products. They sell a product in their store, they decide they want a certain margin, and then they tell suppliers to meet a certain price target if they want their products in WalMart.

> Monopsony is a slippery concept.

How so?

If you want to buy X, and there's only one person selling X, then that person is the monopoly seller of X.

If you want to sell X, and there's only one person buying X, then that person is the monopsony buyer of X.

You can't swap the adjectives around; monopsony buyer is redundant in the same way monopoly seller is. You can think of them as the same word with different agreement forms, much like how "is" in "He is red" is the same word as "am" in "I am purple".

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

#80

Post by simion314 »

braythwayt wrote: post #73
ksec wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on most if not all points but the article didn't argue against any of that. It did point out two things. Companies don't have to literally be the only buyer in a marketplace to wield "monopsony power." If competition isn't perfect — like when there are only a few companies in a market and they aren't undercutting each other's prices — companies gain some ability to lower the price on the stuff they buy. Sellers…

Monopsony is a slippery concept. If I tilt my head just right, we could be discussing the way WalMart purchases products. They sell a product in their store, they decide they want a certain margin, and then they tell suppliers to meet a certain price target if they want their products in WalMart.

Imagine a big city/country with only 2 stores, half of the population uses store A and half store B. Store A and B are happy with the profits and are not competing on the margins, both will take 30% of your products, both will ban your product if they judge they don't like it, maybe store A will block you if you compete with them and store B will block you because some algorithm. So basically you have 2 big pile of shit and you are forced to chose witch one stinks less or looks less disgusting.

Also if you think at the clients of store A and B this fake competition costs them more so the only people that benefit are the store owners, free market should always push for competition and consumer good not for making more oney then a nation. If all this crap is legal then laws need to be changed and this would include limitations for Wallmart or physical stores too.

Post reply on HN