DoJ's probe into Apple expanding beyond music - Page 6

The early access is important, as Amazon offered the Daily Deals in 2008 a year before they requested the 1 day exclusive with no participation in marketing and promotion from the Labels/Artists. And it seems Apple didn't grumble about this.
------
from the Billboard article concerning the original deal sans the 1 day exclusive:
""The labels paid nothing for being included in that privilege, nor were they asked," a major-label head of sales says."

------
from the Billboard article
" iTunes has continued to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support.".
Amazon may be not be requiring the 1 day exclusive (though I believe they still offer it), but it appears they are still requesting the Labels chip in marketing and promotion for the Daily Deal nonetheless.

As to your contention in similarities between Apple and Microsoft:
The difference is that Microsoft was dictating to the computer manufacturers what they should or shouldn't do and threatening to withhold advertising $ to those manufacturers that did not comply. This would put those manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to their rivals who did comply. On top of that, there were most likely contractual agreements between Microsoft and HP, Dell, Compac, Acer, etc. in advertising expenditures.

Apple is not dictating to another company on advertising, they own the iTunes store. What they are saying is that it is not worth Apple's time and money to promote a song, in their own online store, in which they are placed at a competitive disadvantage.

First, your timeline is wrong. When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained.

The rest is just hearsay. But even your source seems to admit that Amazon was still getting preferential promotion on the Label's sites - and Apple has no obligation to subsidize that.

I wish you'd explain how Apple is interfering with that relationship, anyway? If the labels and Amazon want to reach a deal, Apple can't stop them (and apparently never tried). Instead, Apple just said "we'll choose to promote labels and songs that do not cripple us". That's a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to do.


So? Please point to any relevant section of antitrust law that makes that illegal.


Some, but not all. Price fixing prosecution, for example, doesn't require monopoly power.


You're apparently surprised at a lot of things because you insist on posting without knowing what you're talking about. It's not illegal - for any company.


Apple controls that market? So no one can write or sell an Android app without Apple's approval? Or a WebOS app?

97% of mobile phones sold in this country (or 84% of smart phones if you prefer) have absolutely nothing to do with Apple. So 84% of smart phone users are free to purchase anything they wish whether Apple likes it or not. So how is Apple controlling that?


This is, of course, nonsense. First, we don't know that there's a formal investigation. All we have is a few rumors.

But even if there IS an formal investigation, there's no evidence yet (certainly no one has presented a rational argument here of what Apple is allegedly guilty of) that Apple did anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty, right? DOJ is required to look into any complaints that they receive. Only a tiny percentage ever turn into full investigations and even fewer of those have enough evidence for conviction.

And I take efforts to emphasize that. Not of this is proven. In fact, even the reports of an investigation are just reports.


No I am not saying that. The labels and Apple would negotiate how they will promote within their relationship. The labels and Amazon should negotiate how they will promote within their relationship. Amazon should not dictate under what terms the labels can do business with Apple.


Agreed. They ought to be investigate before any of the retailers are looked at. Their business practices are shameful. But two wrongs don't make a right...if in fact Apple did anything wrong.


That is ignoring that MS also used their control of their own marketing dollars to dictate how their partners could deal with a competitor. If the reports are true, then that is exactly what Apple is doing; using their control of their marketing resources to dictate how their partners can deal with a competitor.

And Apple would have every right to say to the labels, if you are giving a better deal to Amazon, we aren't going to play ball. That would be getting themselves a better deal.



To complete the snippet "has continued to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support." Continue being the key word. As in a continuation of their prior 'encouragement' to avoid the deal. A continuation of "Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."


Someone had to be first to get DRM free. The retailers are not a cabal that negotiates en masse with the labels. Apple could have gotten it first, but the labels choose to use Amazon first. This is an example is two parties negotiating issues that related to their own trade. Just as Apple negotiating with the labels resulted in Apple agree to variable pricing. Neither is an example of the deals between two parties being used to enforce details of separate contracts between other parties. Those are really bad examples.


Apple is hardly under attack from their labels. The labels are certainly greedy bastards that would take more from Apple if they could. They are also so behind the times that if they had their way, they would modify their deal with Apple drastically to be more in their favour but that would certainly result in an inferior iTunes. They are out of touch and are bullies themselves.



When MS threatened to withhold advertising resources it was counted as interference.

Yes, advanced access is important and was the reason that Apple first complained. But even without it, Apple is still 'continuing' to discourage participation.

It's a huge leap of imagination to say that Apple is able to dictate to record labels how they can deal with competitors. If anything, the history of the last few years suggests exactly the opposite. It's also a leap of imagination to say Apple did so in this case, even if record labels might wish to portray it as such (and they certainly have a high level of self-interest in doing so). Exactly where is the line on one side of which Apple dictates to the record labels and the record labels decide that maybe it's not in the best economic interest to screw Apple over because they aren't willing to play along. Wherever one might reasonably draw that line, it seems pretty clear that Apple does not have the power to dictate anything to record labels or they'd have been offering DRM free music (before Amazon) without variable pricing.

It's all hearsay at this point. Using that excuse to ignore parts you don't like is just lazy.

At least it seems you finally caught up (and it only took 3 posts this time-yay progress!) and realize it isn't ALL about early access. But let's fix your statements, with a little more honesty this time.

When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained. When Amazon offered to drop advanced access, Apple still complained

I have mentioned to you before. Honesty in posts goes a long way to improving credibility. Unfortunate to have to repeat it.


A couple simple questions for you. I know you will dodge and try to obfuscate again, but let's try. When MS threatened to withhold marketing dollars from OEMs that placed that shortcut for Netscape on the desktop, was that interfering? The fact that they were a monopoly made it illegal, but without the monopoly would it have been right?

try hard seth, try hard.

The term monopoly is used, but the operative concept is market power. Monopolies are not illegal. In fact copyrights and patents are a forms of government-sanctioned monopolies, but they are restricted in term. The laws are all about maintaining open competition. If a company has the ability to restrain competition, use dominance in one market to extend that dominance to another, or set prices, among other competitive abuses, then they may have exercised illegal market power.

Apple doesn't have the power to dictate every detail of their relationship with the labels. That is true. Through their cabal, the labels have lots of clout in the supply of the music and use that to affect their contracts with Apple. But Apple has clout and influence over the online retail distribution side. And the can use this influence to affect their contracts with the labels. As it should be.

But they can also use this clout to influence the contracts between the labels and their competitors. Have they? We don't know. Reports say yes. If they did, was it illegal? We don't know. If they have dominant control over the distribution of online music then it might be.

Wrong again:

"On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[2] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address approach the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.

...

n 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the repeal of Miller-Tydings implied that the Sherman Act's complete ban of vertical price fixing was again effective, and that even the 21st Amendment could not shield California's liquor resale price maintenance regime from the reach of the Sherman Act. California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980). Thus, from the 1975 enactment of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act to the 2008 Leegin decision, resale price maintenance was again no longer legal in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance

It would seem, based on the information we all have, as though Amazon has either more power, or colluded with record labels to allow a) Amazon to gain more power and b) allow record labels more power to dictate terms to other retailers.

Given that we agree on the concepts, any disagreement is related only to terminology, and so can be overlooked.

That is exactly what Apple did. We agree then.


No, the article states Apple voiced their displeasure, it did not state they would withhold marketing / promotion under these circumstances, even though Apple would be perfectly in the right to do so.



You completely and totally missed the point of my statement, "I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?"

If Apple wields such great power how was Apple forced to accept lesser deals from the Labels, when we know they were fighting for better deals, especially since Job's stated in 2002 that DRM was a failed method of selling songs. And it is well publicized that Apple did no want variable rate pricing.



You delude yourself if you don't think the Labels aren't undercutting Apple @ every step.


You failed to mention that Microsoft was threatening to withhold advertising / promotional $ to their customers (Dell, HP, Compac, Acer, IBM, etc.) Apple is not doing this - Apple owns the iTunes store. <the following is sarcasm> Are you suggesting that Apple provide free advertising / promotions for songs on the Amazon on-line store?

Your constant harping on the similarities between Apple and Microsoft don't hold up. If anything, a similarity could be made between Microsoft and the Record Labels, if the Record Labels were withholding free promotional material from selected customers, Apple, Amazon, etc. - Oh wait, that is what Amazon is trying to get the Record Labels to do, harm Apple in favor of Amazon = Microsoft harm Dell in favor of HP if they promote Netscape.

The differences between the Microsoft case and this investigation are substantial - even monumental.

or that the record labels, through their power, used Amazon to gain more power. Yes, that is likely and should be investigated before Apple. Amazon is a small player, so them gaining more likely wouldn't run afoul of any legalities. Apple might not be a big enough player either. But they might be. Your point b is likely dead on.

I would agree with everything but the bit about Amazon being a "small player". They're a retail giant, and, if memory serves, one of the top 3 music retailers in the US.

The basic difference is that Microsoft was a monopoly - as a seller, it had significant market power.

Apple, OTOH, may instead be a monopsony in the world of the record labels, which is a buyer with significant market power.

I have no idea of how this sort of basic difference should affect the analysis, but the difference is so stark that it likely needs to be considered.

Right. And so they could then ask for a better deal themselves...as opposed to derailing any dealings with Amazon. Huge difference between influencing your own contracts and influencing others.


"Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."

and once exclusivity was dropped

"has [b]continued[/i] to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support."
Continued to.


Oh, I understood your point. It just wasn't a very good one. Apple doesn't hold all the power in their relationship with the labels. The labels, acting in unison, have a lot of power and this is used in their negotiations with Apple. But Apple seems to have enough clout to influence the labels dealings with Amazon.


They are certainly out for themselves. So is Apple. They are in a partnership. Both will try to get the most out of their relationship. Unless one side is expected to always and only have their partners interests at heart, it's hardly nefarious. Is Apple trying to undercut and attack the labels because they try to get what is best for them?


MS was threatening to withhold marketing resources from the partners. Apple isn't doing this? Well, then there really is no case. The DoJ should pack up. But if they are doing this...you seem to think it wouldn't be right. or maybe you don't. Not sure.



You are confusing Amazon with the labels. Amazon has no clout. At best they are a tool used by the labels. As for the labels, yes, they should be investigated and investigated before Apple. Their practices are as bad or worse.

They are a retailing giant and hey are 3rd in the total music sales category with 12% compared to Apple's 28%. But in downloaded music sales, Apple is at ~70% and Amazon, I think, it around 8%, which I think makes them second. Being that distant a 2nd place makes them a small player, in download music sales. Isn't the Zune the #2 PMP and MS a huge company? They are still a small player in the PMP market.

Perhaps looking at only the downloaded music sales is too narrow in scope. But, as it is a large market by itself and is the only growing segment (thanks to Apple) of the music sales market as a whole, it seems appropriate.

This CRAZY, radical, maybe even communist like thinking is what ignited the Jailbreak community. My advice... search them out... they are providing an environment that MANY people think Apple should be and are upset enough to make it happen anyway with or without Apples blessing.

The line of investigation rumored to being pursued by the DoJ seems ridiculous as much of what Apple is accused of doing is the way businesses have operated for decades.

If Apple isn't allowed to dictate what type of programing development tools run on its closed product, such a decision from the DoJ could be used as precedence for other systems, such as those offered by Nintendo, Sony and MS.

As for the blockade on hiring employees amongst the big three tech companies, I would be curious to see what the investigation finds. I recall seeing numerous employee contracts drafted, when I worked at a law firm, with terms stating that after a person leaves a company, they will not work for another company in the same industry for a set period of time. There was a lengthy list of the penalties that would incur should someone break the contract and go to work for another company before the time had expired. So once again, another far sweeping precedence could be set by the DoJ depending on what the outcome is.

I don't expect this probe to move fast as I think the DoJ will take its time and be careful with how they present their final conclusion, as the results could effect a great deal of businesses.

Yes, it's a completely artificial segmentation. Amazon wields huge power in retail, across the board.

So the Supreme Court agrees with me. It's NOT ILLEGAL. What they said is that if the accused did something ELSE wrong, they could still be charged. Thanks for proving that I was right.

Fair enough. I realize this monopoly vs. market power thing can become pedantic. The only time it really begs for clarification is when someone uses the argument that Company X can't have a monopoly because consumers still have a choice, so the government should leave the company alone. We hear that a lot, actually.

Sorry, you have not quite made your point. While sarcasm is sometimes an added cherry on top of a well-made cake that is a cogent argument, it isn't so in your case. Here's a tip: Answer the question, explain your analogy. Save the sarcasm for later.

Just because two things have similar ingredients, that does not make them the same.

So what you're saying is, it is great that Apple pretty much single handedly created (yet another) market but it needs to lend a helping hand to other companies because they aren't good enough to do it themselves?

How anyone can't see that this is a clear attempt by the music companies to play one distributor off another and try and wrest power back in the distribution space (and screw me and the artists in the process with bullshit ways to get my music) is completely beyond my comprehension.

Hardly. But creating a successful business within a market doesn't give one the right to do anything you want within that market. The absence of a helping hand doesn't equate to closed fist. Apple negotiating for the best terms for themselves is not the same as negotiating for diminished terms for their competitors.


Which is done all the time. I am sure Apple does it with their partners and suppliers too. That is not a problem (dealing with one hoping to get another to give you a similar or better deal). Subsequently using those relationships to interfere with a competitor's ability to freely negotiate is a very different matter.

A couple simple questions for you. I know you will dodge and try to obfuscate again, but let's try. When MS threatened to withhold marketing dollars from OEMs that placed that shortcut for Netscape on the desktop, was that interfering? The fact that they were a monopoly made it illegal, but without the monopoly would it have been right?

try hard seth, try hard.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to be such a d!ck to try and make your points.

Let's analyze your MS analogy. The players in the PC market are MS (OS, gets paid to provide, also provides OEMs marketing), OEMs, other software companies that write applications for MS Windows. If the OEMs decided not to promote Windows because MS was dicking them around, that would be fair. What's not fair is MS dicking them around.

The players in the music retail business are the musicians, music companies, distribution channel (retail). If the distribution channel does not advertise music that is NOT available to it at the same time as another channel, it really is fair. What's not fair is the music companies dicking them around.

If I have a supermarket and you sell me oranges at a higher price (or don't sell me your choicest oranges), but give the stores in my area the better deal, I'll still be happy to carry your oranges but I'll use my limited space out front to advertise something else. It is a wholly legitimate use of leverage. If I refused to carry your oranges at all, even that move is subject to debate over whether that is illegal.

If MS withheld marketing dollars, that is the equivalent of the music company not promoting the distributor, NOT the other way around. It would be like YOU the star orange grower not promoting my store.

1> Doing whatever you want in that market? Let's look at Ticketmaster for a second. It does whatever it wants and is legal. It constantly works to crush anyone that enters that market. That is the definition of competition. How did Apple negotiate diminished terms for their competitors (Amazon)? Amazon wanted diminished terms for Apple here. Apple simply chose to resist efforts by the music companies to undermine it by using some of the leverage it has against some of the leverage the music companies exerted upon it.
Closed fist is perfectly alright in a competitive market, btw, even though this has nothing to do with Apple trying to directly crush Amazon. Amazon has a similar right to appeal/use whatever leverage it has if the music companies favored Apple with new releases. The fact that Amazon exists and is able to get music is a GREAT example of how the closed fist does not discourage competition. The fact that no one gives a flying **** about Amazon's music is lamentable but you can't argue with what the market has chosen.
2> You make an egregious error in leaping from the statement that Apple uses tactics like playing one partner off another to the fact that what it is now doing interferes with a competitor. The complaint here is from the music companies, not Amazon.

There you go again, implying that Apple has been "[interfering] with a competitor's ability to freely negotiate". Nothing that's come to light supports this assertion. Sorry, but Apple's refusal to waste marketing dollars on songs the record labels were withholding from them to benefit competitors simply doesn't qualify. If anything, this looks like a blatant and coordinated attempt by the labels to manipulate the retail market.

Depends on exactly how MS is 'dicking' with them.


Right. And so the other party in the distribution channel should demand the same treatment. That would be fair. Demanding that they instead remove themselves from a competitors promos is not the same.


Agreed. Though that is very vague.


If the larger supermarket down the street negotiates all of the orange farmers and gets a good deal great. If they use that deal to prevent you from negotiating your own deal with the farmers, saying by removing all their advertising for the oranges, you have just been 'dicked'. The orange farmer wouldn't be willing to poison the good thing they have of selling to to larger supermarket.

There is nothing wrong with your or them negotiating a 'better' deal. There might be something wrong with your competitor telling your common partners how they may deal with you.


Buyers can also be monopolists.

Anyhoo, as I explained, your supermarket analogy can be used to show the buyer (supermarket) side of the equation, if big enough, can also leverage their clout, as it should be. As long as it is leveraged fairly.

As for my harshness with our friend seth. You will see he uses and encourages such posts. I respond to him in the manner which he seems most used to.

If Amazon makes an attractive offer to the labels and it is refused, not on it's own merit but because Apple has 'encouraged' them to reject it, that sounds an awful lot like interfering to me.

And people have been rightful concerned the the actions of Ticketmaster. But the fact that it has gotten away with a lot in no way implies it cannot do something illegal. You aren't honestly arguing that all things are legal in competition, are you?

Amazon didn't diminish Apple's terms at all. They tried to negotiate for better terms. Sort of the point of negotiating. How did Apple negotiate diminished terms for their competitors (Amazon)? Simply. Apparently very simply...by telling their partners not to accept Amazon's offers, in at aleast some cases combined with the threat of removing marketing support.


By telling them what terms they could negotiate with Amazon that would meet Apple's approval.



So, Amazon should only be able to make their own deals with the labels that Apple approves of? That is competition?


No, I didn't even link the two. Apple and every other company that buys, will play their suppliers to get the best deal possible. The bigger they are, the better the deals they can negotiate. That is competition amongst the suppliers. But for Apple to then influence what deals those same suppliers can accept from a competitor is a completely different circumstance.

If Amazon and the record labels come up with a scheme to promote Amazon as their preferred retailer, but Apple throws a wrench into their plans by refusing to be stupid, that sounds an awful lot like Apple just not being stupid.

Not being stupid doesn't mean rules don't apply.

I've asked this before, but no one has answered. When Walmart was still the dominant retailer of all music in the US and the iTunes store was much smaller, if Walmart had threatened to pull marketing support from labels that signed deals with Apple with terms that were not in Walmart's interests, would that have been kosher?

You might want to reread what I responded to. The quoted passages clearly do not agree with what you had said.

I'm done with the side-topic of retail price maintenance.

If Apple had made deals with record labels to give them an unfair advantage in the selling of certain songs, Walmart would have been entirely justified in not investing their marketing dollars in promoting those songs. If the Amazon deal had been done by Apple with record labels, Amazon would have been justified in not wasting marketing dollars to promote songs they wouldn't have access to.

Are you really suggesting that Apple has some sort of obligation to (spend money to) promote music that they are being denied an equal opportunity to sell?

Whoa, step back a minute. Your first quote was, "And Apple would have every right to say to the labels, if you are giving a better deal to Amazon, we aren't going to play ball. That would be getting themselves a better deal."
Apple refused to play ball by stating they would pull free marketing and promotion. That's the part we agree on. That's what the investigation is concerning.


Do you not understand "label marketing support" refers to the labels providing free marketing to Amazon's Daily Deal? That's the part that upsets Apple. That's the part that wasn't included in the original Daily Deals in 2008. And still there is not a mention that Apple would pull their marketing / promotion under the these circumstances, even though Apple would have every right to.

Here's another quote from the Billboard article, ""Amazon is fighting a guerrilla war against iTunes, and now iTunes is getting frustrated because they work hard to set up and promote a release weeks in advance of the street date, and then lo and behold, Amazon jumps in there with this deal of the day and scrapes off some of the cream."


It was and is a damn good point.

Apparently you didn't understand. As Amazon required Record Labels to include free marketing and promotions for the 24 hour exclusive Daily Deal and the new no 24 hour exclusive Daily Deal at the expense of losing Apple's free marketing / promotion it then didn't make economic sense to some Record Labels.

There are Record Labels still utilizing the Daily Deal and the 24 hour exclusives.
Quote from the now historic Billboard article, "One of the few albums to participate in an early-street-date Daily Deal promotion so far this year is Vampire Weekend's "Contra," which Amazon made available for $3.99 Jan. 11, a day before it was available anywhere else. The promotion played an obvious role in powering the album's No. 1 debut on the Billboard 200, with first-week U.S. sales of 124,000, of which 60% were digital downloads, according to Nielsen SoundScan.".

So no Apple has not shut down Amazon's Daily Deals.

By the way your statement, "labels, acting in unison,..." is the definition of collusion and price fixing.



Apple is not undercutting anybody. You use the term undercut incorrectly with Apple. Apple negotiated contracts with the Record Labels in good faith, only to have the Record Labels undercut Apple by giving Amazon lower pricing, DRM free music early and now your stating that the "labels are acting in unison. How is this not attacking Apple at every turn.

How on God's Green Earth can you not see that the Record Labels are sticking it to Apple at every turn.


Microsofts customers were computer manufacturers, HP, Dell, IBM, Compac, Acer, etc.
Apple's customers are you and me.

Microsoft threatened to withhold free advertising dollars from their customers, the computer manufacturers, whom they do not own, putting them at a disadvantage to their competitors
Apple dropped free advertising from their own store, if the Record labels gave Amazon a 24 hour exclusive and the Record Labels provided free marketing / promotions to Amazon.


I'm not confusing Amazon nor the Labels. I'm just telling you that a more apt comparison to what Microsoft did is what the Record Labels could do to their customers.

Amazon has plenty of clout, look at overall sales of music including CDs. That's the card Amazon is playing.

No, I am suggesting that they shouldn't use those dollars as a kludge to get the labels to agree to terms with Amazon that are to Apple's liking. The Amazon should be allowed to negotiate in good faith with the labels without concern is Apple likes what they have to offer.

But, by your interpretation, if they do anything with those dollars other than spend them at the same rate they would for music where a competitor is not granted a short term monopoly, they are using them as a "kludge". Sorry, but what you describe as a kludge, looks an awful like what is often referred to as "common sense".

Big difference between them getting themselves a better deal with this threat and using this threat to undermine Amazon ability to offer a separate deal. That is what the investigation is looking at. If Apple doesn't get the deal they want for themselves, they have every right to act. But should they control what deals Amazon can offer?


And those parts of the deal that undermine Apple's negotiated deals (early access) would be a concern. Deals that involve the labels spending money with Amazon are between Amazon and the labels. Similarly, deals Apple makes with the labels to share marketing costs are between them and the labels.


Then Apple is free to demand as good or better deals for them. They could have demanded the labels pony up marketing dollars for them too or lower prices or whatever they wanted to demand for themselves. They are not free to determine what Amazon may offer the labels.


No they haven't. They tried. And no one said Amazon had stopped the advance access completely. Just that they offered plans without it and this did not stop the complaints, so early access was obviously not the only issue Apple had with the promotion. Which I have repeatedly stated.


What part of me saying they were a cabal, act shamefully and should be investigated prior to any investigation into Apple wasn't clear?


When one party tries to sell for cheaper than a competitor, they are undercutting the competitor. Your use of the word to describe their partners behavior was in fact incorrect. Hence, my asking you if Apple was trying to undercut them. Sheesh..don't correct my rhetorical question about your use of the word by further mangling it's meaning.

The labels are 'attacking' Apple by trying to get the best deal for themselves. This is no more 'attacking' Apple than Apple trying to get the best deal for them is 'attacking' the labels.


And if they are doing so illegally, then they should be investigated. Two wrongs usually don't make a right.


And yet anti-competitive actions and be used both directions. Funny how that works.

...and continued their encouragement not to take part when the 24 hour exclusive was dropped.


unfortunately, anticompetitive practices can also be applied by a buyer/customer against a vendor to affect a competitor.