Bill Bennett


Dealing with a monopsony

America’s regulators watching big tech firms have shifted their focus from monopoly to monopsony.

Monopolies remain a problem. They are when a single company dominates a market from a sales point of view.

Customers have no choice who to buy from. That can lead to monopolies abusing their power and charging high prices.

One buyer to rule them all

A monopsony is where there is a single buyer. Their customers have no choice who they can sell to. Monopsonists can decide what they pay for a product or service.

In the case of technology, monopsonic transactions tend to be at the wholesale level.

Apple is, in effect, the only buyer of apps for iPhones or iPads. Any company wanting to reach customers has to go through Apple’s App Store.

That’s not the whole story. An app developer can try selling direct to customers, it won’t get far.

A similar monopsony exists with Google’s Play Store. While there are alternative stores selling Android apps, Google dominates.

Amazon monopsony

In the same way, Amazon has the ability to decide what it pays to companies wanting to sell products through its online store.

Google and Facebook have control over publishers who want to sell online advertising.

As always with these cases, the powers are not absolute. Sellers have alternatives, but they are rarely practical. A company not selling iOS apps through the App Store will sell a fraction of what its rivals selling through the App Store might achieve.

It’s a new approach for American regulators looking at the tech sector.

There’s a counter argument from the tech giants.

App Store wealth

Take Apple, its App Store has created untold wealth for many software developers who might otherwise have struggled to find customers.

At the same time, it creates value for consumers. People can buy apps from Apple’s store confident that they meet basic standards. Having a central point of sales simplifies buying and finding suitable apps. And there’s a case to be made this process means that apps are more affordable than they might otherwise be.

Developers complain about a lack of flexibility, Apple’s rules can seem rigid and, at times, arbitrary.

The other complaint is that Apple takes a hefty 30 percent cut from every transaction. There is no question this creates a huge revenue stream for Apple. In 2020 the store took $64 billion.

Yet this is in line with the margins software developers offered retail sales back when software was sold in boxes on store shelves. And at that time there was a distributor cut on top of the sales margin.

8 thoughts on “Dealing with a monopsony

  1. That can lead to monopolies abusing their power and charging high prices.

    Which really only happens if it’s private monopoly. State monopolies tend to do what they were created for – be a benefit to the country.

    Thing is, capitalism tends towards private monopolies through mergers etcetera. The resultant monopolies are then hidden behind branding and complex ownership chains.

    Apple and Google are great example of why the market place itself needs to be a state monopoly. Neither platform do well as a competitive model simply because people are going to go to the easiest place to purchase. My experience with competitive places to install game mods, and even to buy games from (I presently have 6 stores installed upon my PC), show that is a disaster.

    Competitive retail kinda worked when we had to go to the store. Of course, there wasn’t a whole lot of competition then either. Now that we’re buying online it doesn’t work at all.

    The new model for purchasing needs to be a state monopoly website where people purchase directly from the manufacturers and growers which remove the retail middleman.

  2. When has a state monopoly ever run anything well? 6 months to get a phone line connected under NZ Post pre becoming an SOE in 1987 who wants to go back to that type of service.

    Which state is going to run the digital app store on the internet anyway US, UK, China? Doesn’t really make sense for globally available digital goods.

    You 6 stores for PC games is actually a good thing, take an example like The Witcher 3 you can buy it on almost any store you want ie: Stream, GOG, Epic etc. Why is that bad?

    If anything platform/store exclusives are what needs regulating against, perhaps regulation on the rent taking % (Apples 30% cut is pretty obscene) and probably some requirement for compliance to some kind of an open standard for interoperability (for example in messaging apps: messenger, whatsapp, telegram etc should ideally have to speak an open interoperable protocol).


  • arc-en-ciel cyclist
  • Phil Stevens

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.