Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
1–10 of 369 posts
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#2so:
- 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.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#3"Merchants at Macy's can only sell at Macy's".
There are many options for you as an app developer. You can enjoy the scale and tooling provided by Apple, at one cost. Or you can write apps for any other computer at some other cost.
Or you may choose not to be an app developer at all and do something else useful.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#4So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it.
Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#5So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)
They could if they didn't strong arm developers into giving them a cut of subscriptions. This is a major point in the Spotify antritrust suit against Apple.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#6The 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 they are the only ones capable of setting up a large enough market, maybe we should regulate that gentleman's fees to the tradesmen? By virtue of people's need to be fashionable and the enormous cost to develop a smartphone and OS, Apple effectively controls enough "land" to warrant regulation. I don't know...
Finally, this rationale also it seems causes a dilemma with B2B relationships. What if your market is quite specialized? Are you a "monopsony"?
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#7So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)
Also, please omit webapps on iOS Safari as an alternative. Apple gives no explanations on why it cripples Safari's W3C compatibility, especially features around PWA, but everyone knows it's to drive developers, users and hence revenue/profits to the app store.
Someone needs to sue Apple for this, and the truth will be revealed when the case enters discovery mode, when Apple internal communications on this are laid bare
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#8So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)
They could if they didn't strong arm developers into giving them a cut of subscriptions. This is a major point in the Spotify antritrust suit against Apple.
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.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#9Something odd about this argument is the fact that 30% is pretty much an industry standard. Apple isn't jacking up the price.
Re: Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
#10So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)
Also, please omit webapps on iOS Safari as an alternative. Apple gives no explanations on why it cripples Safari's W3C compatibility, especially features around PWA, but everyone knows it's to drive developers, users and hence revenue/profits to the app store. Someone needs to sue Apple for this, and the truth will be revealed when the case enters discovery mode, when Apple internal communications on this are laid ba…
Honestly, they just don't have headcount to pull it off/the manager doesn't care. (hi maciej!) He lionizes it on Twitter as not jumping on the latest fads and gets kudos from Apple fans who conflate "new web API" with "slapdash nonsense Google is rushing to try and make the web beat apps" as if it's 2008 still.