Re:Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
by synthmeat on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @06:37AM
(#22053389)
I don't see it mentioned (at all), but my hypothesis for 30% is that it is because of money laundering. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to provide gift cards, would have to limit spending per app, cap all the prices, monitor whale spenders, etc. Easiest just to make it unprofitable.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
by dannyw on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @07:34AM
(#22053649)
Considering that:
* iTunes gift cards regularly go on sale for 60-70% of its value on third party markets, and * 30% is a reasonable, to cheap, price to pay for money laundering,
I think your theory is unfounded.
Re:Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
by synthmeat on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @08:23AM
(#22053907)
Where did you get the "30%"? Last time I researched, it was much less than that. Even at casual glance now, highest figures seem to be at most 15%.
https://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/381/3iie3...
Gift cards would be the least efficient method here for large amounts, so I guess it would not surprise me it's not used there. No one's gonna go hunting small amounts of gift cards on discount on ebay to launder tens of millions of dollars. But who knows...