3 ms·
It's more complicated than that. Nominally there's an ownership transfer, but the big players also charge the suppliers stocking fees [0], which seems to transl
by demosthanos 1y ago
It's more complicated than that. Nominally there's an ownership transfer, but the big players also charge the suppliers stocking fees [0], which seems to translate quite well to what Apple is doing. And if you're charging a fee to stock the product, it's clearly not being treated as a straightforward ownership transfer to the retailer like you say it is.
Plus, since when is a middleman connecting you to a party with the product or service you want not a party you have a business relationship with (as GP claims)? Brokers have been a thing since forever.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges-on-suppliers-as-its-costs-mount-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges...
- luckylion 1y agoI think stocking fees are comparable to the ads you can buy in the app store. But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them, which Walmart does. Brokers are a thing, but would you consider Apple's "app store" a broker? A broker's value-add is making the connection, but Apple's app store's is "being the only app store available on Apple devices". If you forced them to let users choose like Microsoft had to with browsers, that would be different, and I predict their perceived "value as a broker" would drop of a cliff because others could provide the same at a fraction of the cost.
- Ferret7446 1y ago> But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them In a sense they do. You can think of it as Apple buying a license and then selling the license to the end user. I don't disagree that morally Apple is problematic in holding a monopoly on apps on their devices, but charging fees for their shop is not inherently problematic as a standalone issue.