Re:Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
by jfengel on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @10:02AM
(#22054698)
It's not quite true that Walmart purchases products. Walmart's arrangements keep a lot of the risk on the supplier. They charge for warehousing and distribution, and they don't pay for what doesn't get sold.
It is, in a lot of ways, like the market model you suggest. Not precisely; it is its own thing (and is popular precisely because it's so innovative in its business model, which lowers prices for its customers). So analogies with Walmart are always going to be problematic, but it's worth noting that their model is very different from the simple retail-reseller model.
https://spendmatters.com/2015/09/16/what-the-new-wal-mart-st...
Re:Apple’s “monopsony” power, and the woman who named it
by braythwayt on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @10:26AM
(#22054983)
We're splitting some really fine hairs here.
As a customer, I have an account with Apple. When I purchase an app, I pay Apple, and I presume they give 70% of my payment to the developer.
As a customer, it feels like a retail store. I give money to the store, but I end up in a warranty relationship with the manufacturer, much like buying something from a store.
A more accurate comparison is a market hall which permit sellers to set up booths in return for a cut of the revenues. As an example I would look at stores around Olympics games, where the organizers holds enormous power in controlling who get to sell what, the price and the cut. The level of control they assert seems pretty similar to that of apple.