5 ms·

If lowering your price doesn't increase demand then you are in a way a monopoly. I don't see any scenario at all where Apple lower their cut from 30% except via

If lowering your price doesn't increase demand then you are in a way a monopoly. I don't see any scenario at all where Apple lower their cut from 30% except via government action, so it makes sense to legally force them to either get competition or to lower their cut below 30% to something more sensible.

scarface74 6y ago
Or maybe your addressable market is saturated....
- username90 6y ago
  Either you are a monopoly for that market or lowering prices will let you gain more market share. More market share is an incentive so there is a reason to reduce prices. You could probably find some reasonable exceptions, but nevertheless I think if a company has no incentive to reduce prices then it probably should be regulated.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Why is “market share” an incentive to reduce prices? Companies don’t chase market share. They want profit. Market share doesn’t pay bills. There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1.
    - username90 6y ago
      Having incentives to do something doesn't mean that you will do it. Lowering prices reduces your income per sale, that is a disincentive. If it increases sales then that is an incentive. If there are no incentives then there is a problem since then there will never be a reason to reduce price. Healthy competition is when the different parts have incentives to reduce prices to steal customers from each other. Then unless they collude they will reduce prices until there is barely any profits left. However if reducing prices doesn't help you get the other persons customer then there isn't healthy competition. So tell me, what non government action would you say could cause Apple to reduce their 30% fee? I don't see any. Apple reducing their 30% fee wouldn't cause more people to choose Apple over Android and vice versa under current circumstances. Both of those fees are set with no care about competition. > There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1. Pretty sure many would switch if the highest end android phones were free.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Apple has been in business for over 40 years. - in the early 80s, Apple //e’s were more expensive than the competition. - in the mid 80s - 2000, the Macs were and continue to be more expensive than the equivalent PCs - in the early 2000s, iPods were more expensive than the equivalent media players. - the iPhones are more expensive than equivalent Android phones. Apple hasn’t “found a reason” to reduce prices in 4 decades. Did it have a “monopoly” on computers, music players, tablets, watches, monitors, etc all that time? > Pretty sure many would switch if the highest end android phones were free. “high end” Android phones are cheaper than iPhones. Yet and still Apple dominates the high end. Maybe every one doesn’t buy solely on price. Well actually, there is no Android phone that performs as well as the $399 iPhone SE, but that’s another debate....
- stale2002 6y ago
  I don't think you quite understand. The person you are responding to basically quoted the definition of a monopoly, as according to the opinions of the US government. If changing prices does not change demand for your product, then by definition, according to the US government, you have significant market power (IE, you have a monopoly. The definition of a monopoly is merely having significant market power, according to anti-trust law) That is the definition that judges and the government use for market power.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    As usual, it just takes a little observation to see how non sensical this interpretation is. Do you really think that every company that can raise its prices is automatically defined as a monopoly? What next? Nike has a “monopoly” on sneakers because it can raise its prices on Air Jordan’s and people still buy them? Should Apple also be regulated as a monopoly because it raised its prices on Mac Pros and people still bought them? Could it possibly be that a bunch of posters on HN don’t know as much about the law as ... a real judge who didn’t agree with similar arguments.

scarface74 6y ago

Or maybe your addressable market is saturated....

username90 6y ago
Either you are a monopoly for that market or lowering prices will let you gain more market share. More market share is an incentive so there is a reason to reduce prices. You could probably find some reasonable exceptions, but nevertheless I think if a company has no incentive to reduce prices then it probably should be regulated.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Why is “market share” an incentive to reduce prices? Companies don’t chase market share. They want profit. Market share doesn’t pay bills. There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1.
  - username90 6y ago
    Having incentives to do something doesn't mean that you will do it. Lowering prices reduces your income per sale, that is a disincentive. If it increases sales then that is an incentive. If there are no incentives then there is a problem since then there will never be a reason to reduce price. Healthy competition is when the different parts have incentives to reduce prices to steal customers from each other. Then unless they collude they will reduce prices until there is barely any profits left. However if reducing prices doesn't help you get the other persons customer then there isn't healthy competition. So tell me, what non government action would you say could cause Apple to reduce their 30% fee? I don't see any. Apple reducing their 30% fee wouldn't cause more people to choose Apple over Android and vice versa under current circumstances. Both of those fees are set with no care about competition. > There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1. Pretty sure many would switch if the highest end android phones were free.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Apple has been in business for over 40 years. - in the early 80s, Apple //e’s were more expensive than the competition. - in the mid 80s - 2000, the Macs were and continue to be more expensive than the equivalent PCs - in the early 2000s, iPods were more expensive than the equivalent media players. - the iPhones are more expensive than equivalent Android phones. Apple hasn’t “found a reason” to reduce prices in 4 decades. Did it have a “monopoly” on computers, music players, tablets, watches, monitors, etc all that time? > Pretty sure many would switch if the highest end android phones were free. “high end” Android phones are cheaper than iPhones. Yet and still Apple dominates the high end. Maybe every one doesn’t buy solely on price. Well actually, there is no Android phone that performs as well as the $399 iPhone SE, but that’s another debate....
stale2002 6y ago
I don't think you quite understand. The person you are responding to basically quoted the definition of a monopoly, as according to the opinions of the US government. If changing prices does not change demand for your product, then by definition, according to the US government, you have significant market power (IE, you have a monopoly. The definition of a monopoly is merely having significant market power, according to anti-trust law) That is the definition that judges and the government use for market power.
- scarface74 6y ago
  As usual, it just takes a little observation to see how non sensical this interpretation is. Do you really think that every company that can raise its prices is automatically defined as a monopoly? What next? Nike has a “monopoly” on sneakers because it can raise its prices on Air Jordan’s and people still buy them? Should Apple also be regulated as a monopoly because it raised its prices on Mac Pros and people still bought them? Could it possibly be that a bunch of posters on HN don’t know as much about the law as ... a real judge who didn’t agree with similar arguments.