5 ms·

What Apple and Google is doing is in many ways effectively price control and inhibits free market dynamics. For example Apple demand that app developers price

What Apple and Google is doing is in many ways effectively price control and inhibits free market dynamics. For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store, which makes the app store appear competitive and effectively kills incentives for the app store to reduce their fees, while devaluing products sold through the app store. I do agree with you though about the political side of the matter.

catgary 6y ago
That’s standard - credit card companies have similar agreements with merchants.
- hackingthenews 6y ago
  Completely agree. Unapparent effective price fixing is standard. The modern governments has dropped the ball on trying to understand the modern markets.
millstone 6y ago
> Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores Where did you read that? I don't think that's true; for example YouTube Premium costs more through iOS IAP compared to the website. And Spotify did the same for years too.
- hackingthenews 6y ago
  Honestly heard it more than once from smaller players. I can see how the bigger players gets away with this based on all the other things they get away with that we know about.
parasubvert 6y ago
Those pricing tactics are standard retail practices when dealing with large chains (“we will not be undersold”). This is why most items have an MSRP: to provide transparency across all retailers. With software it’s of course easy to say that it’s a different product in different platforms. Which is why Apple used legal licensing to make Apps feel more like traditional products. Arguably this makes easier for consumers to compare platforms and make a buying decision based on the underlying platform and not transitory deals on top of it. We can assume that all smartphone platforms are equal for their 3rd party software prices. Competition therefore isn’t on partner discounts or formations of cartels, it’s on the strengths of the underlying platform itself. This does stop a form of competition, but I’m not sure price opacity is a form that has traditionally been viewed as a net positive. Perhaps this leads to a legislative regime similar to US auto sales where dealers/shops and manufacturers must have separate ownership. To me Apple’s policies aren’t directly trying to emulate some aspects of this to avoid having to give up running the store.
- rdslw 6y ago
  Nope. Lets stick to the ‘no lower pirce than apple store’. This is very and clearly anti competitive tactic. Only side (apple) with significant leverage can use it. In every other situation it is not possible. And to make it clear: this point is anti competitive, while you re completly skipping this topic concentrating on apple vs developer, because it harms (increases of price) consumers. Multiple datapoints on this available, the best one is the very own of apple: mac os store. It is a ghost town. Ios store would be instantly the same ghost if there existed even one ios app store alternative. P.S. reminder: im addressing your mistake of ‘this is not anticompetitive’.
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    I disagree. “No lower price” is not anti-competitive, it’s a common retail policy, and traditionally has been viewed as pro-competitive as it stops predatory pricing tactics. It also implies the existence of a marketplace of dealers for iOS apps: there is none. The marketplace is among two different platforms vying for users. ISVs are free to exclusively support one platform or the other. Google could lower their cut to 15% as incentive. The fact that they don’t do this is testament to Apple’s platform ability to attract customers that actually spend money. Fundamentally this is about retailer policies and a reseller has every right to reject your product if it doesn’t want to represent it. 30% markup isn’t unreasonable when looking at actual retailers with a mix of products that have markups that vary from 5-100%. What you want is Google and Apple’s platforms to be declared utilities where their platforms are state-regulated businesses that are forced to create a marketplace of retailers and are forced to have a 3rd party agency determine app admission guidelines across stores. This is far beyond the reach of antitrust law and will require legislative solutions. Two tiers of completion would now exist: among retailers and among platforms. The cut % in some cases will go down. It is however debatable this will lead to overall lower consumer prices or a better consumer experience. The platforms are now entrenched for a generation and can’t make major changes except by 3rd party permission. All these new agencies need to be funded, and this raises the supply chain cost. The new admission guidelines might be worse or better. The retail experiences will be confusing as none will be default. The MSRP of software will be confusing (unless it’s mandated that ISVs publish one). All of this to solve the problem of ISVs that want to build and sell the same product on two platforms and want to be able to take more of the retail margin for themselves? Hard pass. I’d much rather see time, energy, and capital be allocated to entrepreneurs that may topple this regime by making a better alternative.
cynix 6y ago
> For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store False. You can price your app/IAP higher, you just can't tell the user it's cheaper elsewhere.
- fastball 6y ago
  You can tell it's a well-functioning market because one participant is making money off of forced information asymmetries.
  - javagram 6y ago
    I doubt a traditional retailer would be happy if a manufacturer shipped a box to them with a label “Cheaper at Walmart/Amazon.com” either. Information asymmetry exists in most markets and I don’t think that creates a justification for antitrust action under current law.
    - fastball 6y ago
      There is a difference between information asymmetry existing and deliberately creating one. I don't think anyone should be allowed to use their market position to do that. With regards to typical retail, I think that's a bit of a wonky analogy as it's not a competitor in this case, it's the company themselves. That being said, things like that have been done. Not exactly the same but in the same spirit is printing the "retail price" on the box to prevent 3rd party sellers from just charging whatever they want.

catgary 6y ago

That’s standard - credit card companies have similar agreements with merchants.

hackingthenews 6y ago
Completely agree. Unapparent effective price fixing is standard. The modern governments has dropped the ball on trying to understand the modern markets.

millstone 6y ago

> Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores Where did you read that? I don't think that's true; for example YouTube Premium costs more through iOS IAP compared to the website. And Spotify did the same for years too.

hackingthenews 6y ago
Honestly heard it more than once from smaller players. I can see how the bigger players gets away with this based on all the other things they get away with that we know about.

parasubvert 6y ago

Those pricing tactics are standard retail practices when dealing with large chains (“we will not be undersold”). This is why most items have an MSRP: to provide transparency across all retailers. With software it’s of course easy to say that it’s a different product in different platforms. Which is why Apple used legal licensing to make Apps feel more like traditional products. Arguably this makes easier for consumers to compare platforms and make a buying decision based on the underlying platform and not transitory deals on top of it. We can assume that all smartphone platforms are equal for their 3rd party software prices. Competition therefore isn’t on partner discounts or formations of cartels, it’s on the strengths of the underlying platform itself. This does stop a form of competition, but I’m not sure price opacity is a form that has traditionally been viewed as a net positive. Perhaps this leads to a legislative regime similar to US auto sales where dealers/shops and manufacturers must have separate ownership. To me Apple’s policies aren’t directly trying to emulate some aspects of this to avoid having to give up running the store.

rdslw 6y ago
Nope. Lets stick to the ‘no lower pirce than apple store’. This is very and clearly anti competitive tactic. Only side (apple) with significant leverage can use it. In every other situation it is not possible. And to make it clear: this point is anti competitive, while you re completly skipping this topic concentrating on apple vs developer, because it harms (increases of price) consumers. Multiple datapoints on this available, the best one is the very own of apple: mac os store. It is a ghost town. Ios store would be instantly the same ghost if there existed even one ios app store alternative. P.S. reminder: im addressing your mistake of ‘this is not anticompetitive’.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  I disagree. “No lower price” is not anti-competitive, it’s a common retail policy, and traditionally has been viewed as pro-competitive as it stops predatory pricing tactics. It also implies the existence of a marketplace of dealers for iOS apps: there is none. The marketplace is among two different platforms vying for users. ISVs are free to exclusively support one platform or the other. Google could lower their cut to 15% as incentive. The fact that they don’t do this is testament to Apple’s platform ability to attract customers that actually spend money. Fundamentally this is about retailer policies and a reseller has every right to reject your product if it doesn’t want to represent it. 30% markup isn’t unreasonable when looking at actual retailers with a mix of products that have markups that vary from 5-100%. What you want is Google and Apple’s platforms to be declared utilities where their platforms are state-regulated businesses that are forced to create a marketplace of retailers and are forced to have a 3rd party agency determine app admission guidelines across stores. This is far beyond the reach of antitrust law and will require legislative solutions. Two tiers of completion would now exist: among retailers and among platforms. The cut % in some cases will go down. It is however debatable this will lead to overall lower consumer prices or a better consumer experience. The platforms are now entrenched for a generation and can’t make major changes except by 3rd party permission. All these new agencies need to be funded, and this raises the supply chain cost. The new admission guidelines might be worse or better. The retail experiences will be confusing as none will be default. The MSRP of software will be confusing (unless it’s mandated that ISVs publish one). All of this to solve the problem of ISVs that want to build and sell the same product on two platforms and want to be able to take more of the retail margin for themselves? Hard pass. I’d much rather see time, energy, and capital be allocated to entrepreneurs that may topple this regime by making a better alternative.

cynix 6y ago

> For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store False. You can price your app/IAP higher, you just can't tell the user it's cheaper elsewhere.

fastball 6y ago
You can tell it's a well-functioning market because one participant is making money off of forced information asymmetries.
- javagram 6y ago
  I doubt a traditional retailer would be happy if a manufacturer shipped a box to them with a label “Cheaper at Walmart/Amazon.com” either. Information asymmetry exists in most markets and I don’t think that creates a justification for antitrust action under current law.
  - fastball 6y ago
    There is a difference between information asymmetry existing and deliberately creating one. I don't think anyone should be allowed to use their market position to do that. With regards to typical retail, I think that's a bit of a wonky analogy as it's not a competitor in this case, it's the company themselves. That being said, things like that have been done. Not exactly the same but in the same spirit is printing the "retail price" on the box to prevent 3rd party sellers from just charging whatever they want.