DoJ's probe into Apple expanding beyond music - Page 3

jeesh, you are ignorant.

Interesting and I should not have quoted MS as it's like comparing Apple to Oranges
The point I wanted to make is that I have no clue why the Fed would investigate Apple. Contrary to MS and their very public monopolistic behavior, we have yet to hear major complaints about Apple being anti-competitive. With all the problems that stem from lack of or enforcement of regulations in the banking industry, the oil industry and so on, it seems that the feds have bigger fish to fry...

Finally someone who actually has read Adam Smith.

And John Locke, who loved human endeavor as the highest form of liberty (Native Americans and the environment be damned) and thus paved the way for Adam Smith, he also said that freedom only happens when everyone has the chance to innovate and be free. Monopolies are bad for capitalism - they are the bread and butter of mercantilism.

The Founding Fathers and the Real Original Tea Party folks, like Samuel Adams, were attacking both the King of England (government) and the East India Company (corporate monopolies) at the same time. Maybe the Tea Party'ers today would like to learn some history, before they wave their "Don't Tread On Me" flags in ignorance.

I agree, you have no clue why the Fed would investigate Apple! I think we can all wait until a few more of us actually have a clue.

Actually it is very different.

The difference is labels gave Amazon special deals like have new songs a weeks or days earlier, which gives Amazon a competitive advantage over Apple.

What is the point for Apple to promote those songs on their front page when it's already on another store for days already? so they can look like a total dumbass? It's like MTV holding a world premier event for "Thriller" when it's already playing on VH1 for days.

And that is the point. Who decides whether the monopolist abuses power?!?!!? You? The public??

That is why there are legal procedures and yes, bureaucracies - people's whose job it is to determine this - fairly and legally.

Just because you don't like the government, doesn't mean that they are hurting poor MS or Apple.

If Apple can prove it is a legal walled garden, then they will be fine and lawyers will get rich .... but that's living in a free country.

You really ARE ignorant.

You mean the view of being rational?

Funny how you think Stumptown is a mecca for government checks, when it is Detroit that is the poster child for free market capitalism. How did that work out? I just happen to acknowledge that capitalism is a great system of economics that needs to be regulated. I also believe that the business community needs someone outside of business to help set and enforce the rules ... do you disagree with that?

I appreciate that you can put people in little boxes based upon where they live. Do you think the same for people of certain races and genders?

I'm sure you don't worry about little things like logic and fairness, but unemployment rates don't necessarily reflect sound economic policies ... China and North Korea have a great unemployment rates! Let us know when you are moving to one of those places.

Can anyone find out which office or person in DoJ is spearheading this witch hunt? I am hoping someone can publish the email address of whoever is in charge so that the Mac community can start bombarding them with negative feedback, much like we used to do in the good old days of the Mac Evangelist under Guy Kawasaki. Yes, the DoJ is supposed to be above politics, but when they sense public opinion may be against them, it could have an effect. These kind of negative PR campaigns can and do work. I hope others will join me in trying to find out who to target and how to reach them. Just sending stuff to the DoJ in general will not be effective. We've got to find the specific group doing this. And then maybe copy Eric Holder just to make sure he knows about it.

Clearly some company has complained, and the DoJ finds sufficient merit in that complaint to look into the matter more thoroughly. Nobody had heard about Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior until a complaint was filed with the FTC in 1992, and hardly anyone heard about it even then, until the DoJ filed their lawsuit years later. I'm not saying the complaints have equal merit (doubtful) but only that the public at large isn't necessarily going to be the first to know about this sort of thing.

Wow, are you serious? This is the same sort of baloney that was used to defend Microsoft. Turned out they'd violated the law anyway.

thats the way to stop them.

So far the response can be summarized as: Apple is no better than Microsoft, and it's not going to do any good. You may be right, but I am enough of an idealist to go ahead and register my opinion. Here is the text of the email I just sent to the DoJ via their website's contact us address:

"I just heard that the New York Post has published an article about how the DoJ is conducting an inquiry into Apple Corporation's music business practices. I would like to contact whoever is in charge of this activity to register my extreme displeasure. Apple is one of the few American companies that is leading the world in its area of expertise. They should be rewarded and supported for strengthening our economy, not browbeaten by the government. I have deep suspicions that this inquiry is being driven by Apple's corporate competitors--that they are using the DoJ as a tool to gain a competitive advantage. They cannot compete through creativity or vision, so I fear that they seek to use the instruments of government to impede Apple's success.

As an Apple stockholder I urge the DoJ to let the marketplace determine success. Apple has revolutionized the way we all buy and listen to music. It has been good for consumers and good for artists. They more than any law or enforcement regime singlehandedly marginalized music piracy. Please, DoJ, don't destroy one of the few bright spots in American industry. Let Apple be Apple."

Perhaps this is foolish and ineffective, but for democracy to work people have to participate. Anyway, it made me feel better.

Yes, exactly, The record labels and Amazon colluded to a) allow the record labels to have greater ability to fix prices and b) weaken a competitor of Amazon's and improve Amazon's position in (i.e., better control of) the retail music market. It's clear that these deals with Amazon were directed squarely at Apple. It would be ludicrous of Apple to invest money promoting songs that have been made exclusively available to a competitor, particularly for songs where the bulk of sales may come in the first few days after release. So, Apple telling them that they aren't going to waste money promoting those songs if they go ahead with exclusive deals with other outlets is no more than giving them a heads up, not abuse of market control, which they don't actually have.

The DoJ should possibly be investigating the recording industry, but Apple is not the place to look for signs of smoke.

I don't see this as the same thing at all, maybe because I'm a fan of a worldwide release style policy, it pisses me off no end to to see something available in one place and not another.

But to your point of Apple tactics been similar to Microsoft's, I still don't see it. Apple is, at worst, doing exactly what Amazon is trying to do to Apple, undermine. At best they are simply saying that we are not going to use precious and expensive front page time for your product if your going to give it away someplace else 24 hours in advance, and possibly cheaper.

Do you want Apple to help the music labels sell their music and also help Amazon out get exclusive deals by not trying to barter themselves? There is abusing a monopoly position (hope the labels like the taste of their medicine) and there is been handcuffed for no other reason then you made your company awesome and everyone else is pooing themselves and don't know what to do.

It's the Post and you guys are all upset?

Seriously?

I think the movie industry doesn't want to have a collapse like the music business. You see, having worked at a label, you could always buy a single per se but sometime the label, on purpose, have a hit you could only get with the purchase of the whole album. iTunes changed that and at the same time the labels were too slow to embrace the tech. Now Apple somewhat runs the boat and the film industry, especially since most of the larger ones are foreign owned, sad, I wouldn't blame them.

On the other hand having the DoJ looking into you can sometimes snowball where all little tech companies jump onboard making it a larger force than by itself. This is not a good thing.

Aha! Someone here gets the real issue.

The government should encourage innovation and creativity.

If they want to fight any monopoly (in their wisdom - if they ever had any!) - they should provide funds for creating better and competing products rather than waste taxpayer dollars on meaningless probes and investigations!

In this way, the money will be used to encourage companies who have ideas to build better products.

Please name an 'anti-competitive practice' engaged in by Apple.

Good call. The music labels seem to feel they are entitled to the upper hand in all of their relationships.

Fox news can rot your brain.

It is different, but that is not the defining difference. Amazon reportedly reworked the deal of the day promo not to require the advance access (one day, not days or weeks) and it became more of a one day sale. Apple still didn't like this, reportedly.

If in the early days of the iTunes music store, Walmart had used its clout with the recording industry to force the labels to only allow Apple to sell music on Walmart's terms, the DoJ would have likely investigated that too...possibly at Apple's request.

Wait, that would only be true if Apple was writing all their native apps and making it hard to install any competing ones. The Opera browser is a good example. If Apple were Microsoft they wouldn't allow it.

The problem with Netscape vs. Microsoft was Microsoft pushing IE on the desktop and making it harder to install third party browsers.

The DoJ needs to spend our tax dollars elsewhere. The Music Label / Amazon deal was totally unfair to Apple. Amazon got to sell higher quality, DRM free tracks exclusively and well before Apple. And this was all so the music industry could PROP UP Amazon and take power away from Apple. The Daily Deal thing was another way the music labels helped Amazon.

I don't mind Apple having competition, but when you tie their feet together to let the other guy catch up it's not ethical. In America, the fee market should be allowed to function freely and fairly. If Apple figure out how to sell the Music Industries goods the best then they deserve the success. Amazon needs to to innovate to compete, not be given a handicap.

This looks a lot like collusion. The Music Ind. giving Amazon a better deal on product to drive the market away from Apple. It's kind of illegal.

Whether they have monopoly level of influence over the online music sales industry is likely the key question.


There is a bit of a contradiction (or it seems anyway) in your statement.
"The law has always allowed for things like only offering advertising allowances if the partner complies with your rules. As long as you're not a monopoly and demanding better terms than anyone else, it's perfectly legal."

Exactly what rules would your partners have to comply with, if not specialized (better) terms? If those terms of your relationship extend to include prohibitions with whom and how you are able to do business, that would seem to be 'better' terms.

And in that case, then even if Apple is 'guilty', perhaps the DoJ needs to say to Amazon and the labels "tough shit, you got what you asked for. What goes around comes around." In legalese of course.

I'd buy an iPad right now if Apple allowed us to sideload apps without going through the app store.

But as long as it's a walled garden, I feel like it'll never truly be mine. It'd be nice if they were mandated to allow side loading.

If the user doesn't want to risk problems with side loaded apps, they can simply NOT SIDELOAD THEM. Apple shouldn't be dictating what we can do with what we buy. It's as simple as that.

Shouldn't the option be there?

Yeah, and Walmart would start dictating what kind of music artist made. Music Labels wanted their stuff at Walmart and pushed only what could sell in bulk. You could never find anything non mainstream there.

I'm so glad iTunes flattened the whole system. It's just as easy to find indies as it is to find majors. Apple also gave consumers the ability to purchase individual tracks and extremely low prices. I really don't see how Apple was hurting the consumer.

But anyway, Walmart was never "investigated" and they actually were known, for a fact, to dictate terms of what they sold. And that goes well beyond music. Shoot, Walmart has never been investigated for destroying the economy of small towns everywhere.

LOL! Don't make me laugh! The other tablet makers don't even own their own OS. What you see crawling out from those Asian tech firms are nothing but cheap a** android tablets. So many in fact are hitting the market they have already cannibalized their own prices.
And lets be honest here, the real culprit in the pc biz are MS and their tight nit partners. MS controls 97% of the pcs with the help of Dell and HP just to name a few.
So if the DoJ wants to do something really useful they should mandate that the pc vendors accept any OS onto their system. Yeah! But that would be rather hard since most of the tech in the pc belongs to MS(intellectual property). Oh well, break up MS!
We all know that MS conspires to keep competing OSes from the pc space. Don't play with me!

Wrong on all counts.

- 70% does not a monopoly make. Regardless online sales are only 1 way music is sold, mail-order and retail are part of the same business. There have been a colorful menagerie of online music retails - their failures don't mean the successful should be punished. That's sone warped logic.
-Having support for unrestricted open standards by making iTunes/iPods compatible with other music sources will destroy any case in court the DOJ might put together. Amazon, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. have even had lower prices for music. It's a moronic waste of time for the government to pursue this. I'm not sure how you've imagined support for various audio formats as an anti-competitive practice. Is the magic involved? Or is it some other bias?
-iTunes growth is not responsible for other's failures. Anyone is still free to make their own market and devices, go to any electronics store and visit the MP3 player section. Further CD and DVD players 'compete' for audio devices. There is not even the hint of a monopoly here, this is all about the government noticing Apple's billions in cash sitting in the bank, and the need to invent a reason and try to take it.

Where was the government, both past R and D administrations, as music has been stolen en mass by millions of people? There was no money in that, so it was up to the RIAA to pursue it themselves in court. This is the same government that is trying to use some idiotic notion of net neutrality to find another way to grow their beaurocracy and increase tax revenue. The economic message from this administration is very clear to the technology companies, they want a lot more control and money from this sector, and they're not above stoking the fears and 'gimme, gimme' mentality of their constituants.

Which version of Flash should Apple put on the iPad?

Are you talking about the version THAT DOESN'T EXIST?

Are you also implying that over eighty international networks also don't exist?

I don't think you really understand what a monopoly is. There have been other companies defined as monopolies with less that 70% of a given market.


Umm...where did I say it was anticompetitive for them to support other vendors on their players? Please read posts before responding to them.

I responded to your post that this fact somehow 'torpedoes' any case here. I said that Apple allowing other formats helped the sales of their players. Given that, why would that ban other media? That would have been moronic, no? It was just a dumb argument to say that Apple allowing other music sources on their players would 'torpedo' any case. Really dumb.


Oh, ok. I see where you are coming from. No need to continue this discussion. I see it can't go anywhere with that sort of deluded viewpoint.


Interesting point of view.

Hollywood can go F itself. I hope Apple can persuade all of these artists, bands, and movie producers to bypass the large production companies and post music to iTunes directly. CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN, CUT OUT THESE COMPANIES AND LAWYERS who are doing nothing other than skimming off the top, raising prices for consumers, and who are now going to the length of trying to frame Apple.

There are so many things "reportedly" that I honestly don't give a shit anymore.

Well Apple use no language at all which prevents an iPhone developer from also developing for other platforms. Where on earth did you get that idea from?

All Apple is doing is preventing you from developing using any other methods for the iPhone OS (i.e. no Cydia etc.) And I don't see Microsoft (with XBox), Sony (with PS3/PSP) or Nintendo (with the Wii/DS) allowing any other way of developing for their platforms outside of the prescribed SDKs and distribution channels.

This is just utter BS postulation from some random source, or the DoJ needs to have its reins yanked to get it back inline and focus the most likely worthless and unimportant music issue.

Or how about the DoJ kicking BPs ass for some of that JUSTICE, instead of letting them get away with dragging their heels on the cleanup operation.

I was enjoying this healthy debate, nice bit of Adam Smith thrown in for good measures, bit of market theories etc. Been a good education reading about the DOJ and anti-trust measures against Microsoft. So I thank you all for an enlightening debate.

Then somebody went for the jugular and threw in 'those Commie bastards', in there and I lost interest. Come on guys, wether your left or right of the spectrum lets not get sensationalist here!

It didn't take a Witch Hunt to prove when you have 97% of the market in all markets that you're a monopoly. However, Bill Gates got a slap on the wrist and a $250k fine by GW for all the trouble.

I can only assume you are being sarcastic. Before Apple's app store the only reason apps weren't developed for competitors phones was primarily interference from carriers. Now, because of Apple's ability to change this interference the app store for Android is growing at an astounding rate, just like Apple's did. Google should thank Apple for leading the way.

You mean they tried to use their monopoly in os to give away a browser in order to put Netscape out of business. Because that is exactly what you are saying.


Why should Apple be FORCED to put extra advertising dollars into music they aren't first to get?


No, a monopoly would have to have at least near 100% market share to be classed as a monopoly, otherwise it is just the biggest player.


Having the monopoly isn't illegal either, by the way. Abusing your market position (be it 60% or ~100%) to stifle innovation/competition is the illegal bit.

Apple only has about 70% of the DIGITAL ONLY downloads, and the music labels have already shown that to not be enough to "control things" as the labels still have ultimate control of the content and have been able to dictate that Apple introduce variable pricing, amongst other things.

This whole thing is a crock.

You are the one that needs to understand the meaning of 'success.'

Every one of your examples went down. I.e., ended up unsuccessful ultimately. (In BP's case, that's still happening).