DoJ's probe into Apple expanding beyond music - Page 7

And when used in cases where this no short term monopoly?

Well, Apple isn't under any obligation to spend any money to promote songs sold on iTunes. Their only obligation is to do what makes sense from a business perspective. If Apple said to record companies, give us exclusive access to your music for a day, or a few days, or we aren't going to sell it, that might be an abuse of market position. It's just completely ridiculous to say that not wasting money promoting songs that they aren't allowed to sell on an equal footing is. We've gone back and forth on this exact point for I don't know how many posts, and your position just isn't tenable at all

Then they ought to use their clout/marketing dollars to negotiate a better contract for them not use it to interfere with the contract Amazon is offering. They could negotiate equal footing or better and they should. Requiring that your terms are better is not the same a requiring that a competitors terms are worse.

If you want better health care than your neighbour, you negotiate and pay for it. You don't force the hospital to reduce the care they offer him.

Well, I haven't seen anything to support the assertion that Apple demanded better terms than Amazon. Nor have I seen anything to indicate that Apple "forced" them to do anything. All Apple did, according to all reports, is tell them that they weren't going to spend money to help the record companies give Amazon preferential treatment, you know, like telling your doctor that you aren't going to pay for the office visit if he isn't going to see you. Does that force him to see you?

This is, of course, nonsense. Record labels offer Amazon preferential terms. We know for a fact that they offered Amazon a head start on selling their music. Then, we have a rumor from a record label shill magazine that they offered to change it to only offer to help promote Amazon without giving them a head start. Even if that is true, the labels are offering preferential treatment to Amazon.

Just what could Apple possibly do that you would consider fair? Roll over and let the labels and Amazon walk all over them? Please explain precisely what Apple could do to meet your requirements of fairness AND that would have any chance of being successful.

Apple didn't do anything illegal - they simply said "go ahead and give Amazon preferential treatment, but don't expect us to subsidize them by given those songs preferred locations on our store." By your logic, Apple should be required to continue to support the labels no matter how much money or how many customers they divert to Amazon. That is patently absurd.

So, tell us exactly what actions Apple could have taken.


You're done because you lost. What part of "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" do you need help understanding?

What you said is that Apple didn't have to play ball, meaning that it is OK for them to pull free marketing / promotions from songs in the 24 hour exclusive Daily Deals. That is what the FTC is investigating. Then you dance around your admitting this with tangential arguments about how Apple negotiates. Either Apple has to play ball or they don't. Make up your mind.


And Apple has a perfect right to not spend Apple's money, time and resources to promote those songs.


Decide, Apple must play ball or they don't, stop dancing around with this irrelevant "methods of negotiating argument", because it is not germane.

Apple tried repeatedly to negotiate more reasonable contracts with the Record Labels - DRM free, standard pricing, etc. To no avail. So basically the Record Labels have given Apple lesser deals than their competitors, yet Apple wields all this market dominance. You can't have it both ways.

You're correct, Apple can not determine what the Record Labels spend on marketing with competitors, just like the Record Labels can not determine what Apple will spend on marketing / promoting music in their own store, this being the iTunes Store. It works both ways.


So you admit that Apple doesn't have the clout to stop the 24 hour exclusive nor the reworked Daily Deals. Where is all this market dominance Apple is supposed to have? And again, no where in the article does it state that Apple is withholding free marketing / promotions for any songs in the reworked Daily Deals.


You admit the Record Labels colluded against Apple, yet you still staunchly stand behind your statement that the Record Labels aren't attacking Apple at every turn. You can not have it both ways - decide.


Undercutting often means more that just price. The Record Labels undercut Apple by offering DRM free music to Amazon long before Apple, the Record Labels undercut Apple by forcing variable rate pricing on Apple. I'm not sure what your issue with the work undercut is.

But Apple isn't attacking the Record Labels, they are just saying if 24 hour exclusive deals are made with Amazon, we will not offer free marketing / promoting for those songs. And again, no where in the article does it state that Apple is withholding free marketing / promotions for any songs in the reworked Daily Deals( that being the latest deal without the 24 hour head start, but includes free marketing by the Record Labels)


Here's your quote,"Apple is hardly under attack from their labels." Yet you admit they colluded against Apple. Now you're saying well if they did then they should be investigated. Make up your mind.


What anti-competitive actions? Refusing to offer free stuff to someone screwing you over?

And again, no where in the article does it state that Apple is withholding free marketing / promotions for any songs in the reworked Daily Deals( that being the latest deal without the 24 hour head start, but includes the free marketing by the Record Labels). But even if they do, it is Apple's right to do so.

Your very statement and I quote, "And yet anti-competitive actions and be used both directions. Funny how that works." means that the comparisons between the Microsoft case and this is completely different. Microsoft threatened to withhold $$$$ in advertising to their customers, Apple is withholding free stuff to Record Labels screwing them over.

I asked you two simple question and you aren't able to answer them. I suppose it would be difficult. An honest answer would counter your position, so best avoided. I must be becoming psychic to be able to so well predict when you will and won't do.


Anyway, I'll answer yours, since I have no problem with honest answers. What could they do? I don't know, maybe something unheard of, something radical. Ready? They could negotiate similar or better or just different terms that are to their liking. I know it is a difficult concept, but there is a difference between improving your position and reducing someone else's.

So, you still working on the answers to my questions? I don't really expect you can answer them, but I would hope you would try. Maybe ask LM for some help.

Amazon getting advance access would potentially violate Apple terms of having access to music on the street date. Amazon selling it early essentially moves the street date up, but without letting Apple sell it on the new street date. That would be an instance of Apple requiring the labels to meet their contractual obligations to Apple and using their marketing resources to enforce it.

Apple using those same resources to influence other aspects of Amazon's contracts with the labels is completely different.


Yes. Unless and until the use it to unfairly influence trade within the market place. If they have done this, then the investigation has merit.


Nothing to do with methods of negotiating. It has to do with if and how those negotiations are used to affect the negotiations of competitors.


Umm, yeah you can. The record labels might constitute a monopoly in the music supply. Apple might have monopoly influence within the music retail business. They are not mutually exclusive. It is silly to even think that.


So, you are saying that if they did intentionally influence the negotiations between Amazon and the labels in terms of how much the labels would spend on marketing it would be wrong? Good. I will have to remember you said that.



and yet more than enough to influence it.
"in response, label executives at Capitol, Capitol Nashville and Jive recently opted against participating in Daily Deal promotions they had been considering"


Collusion isn't best described as attacking. If the labels are attacking Apple, whether the do it individually or together has no impact on if 'attack' is the best description. They are working together, possibly illegally, to gain any advantages over Apple that they can. This is wrong. But it is very poorly described as attacking. Your drug store seeks to benefit as much as possible from your business. Are they attacking you? The idea that they are colluding instead of working separately to the same end doesn't make their actions suddenly become an attack. The collusion might make those actions illegal, but doesn't make them an attack. They are (or are not) an attack with or without any collusion.


...and continued to complain even without 24 exclusive deals.



Either they are attacking Apple or they aren't. Them colluding doesn't make using the word 'attack' more appropriate. If they colluded, they did so against Apple, Walmart, Amazon, the artists and anyone else in the business. The fact they collude is not what determines if they are attacking Apple.

If their actions are 'attacking' Apple, then collectively or individually, it would still be attacking. Given that, if by your logic the stop working together but still aggressively (and legally) pursue a better position with Apple, they would no longer be attacking Apple. Funny logic.


Using the offer of or removal of the 'free stuff' to help determine how they will deal with your competitors might be anti-compeitive.


Says they continued to complain. The prior description of their complaints, i.e what is continuing, included the threat to remove marketing support.


Seriously? You don't understand that it doesn't matter which side of the customer/seller equation you are on? If you are in a position of dominant influence your actions can be used to influence other trade within market. MS used the providing or refusal of marketing support to influence how their partners could deal with a competitor. The investigation is into whether Apple used their marketing support to influence how their partners could deal with a competitor.

Whether the partner they applied pressure to via their market dominance was a customer or seller really isn't important. You keep bringing it up as though this difference matters, but it doesn't. If Apple doesn't have dominant influence in the market, there is no case anyway. But you can't simply say they can't be guilty because they are a customer.