Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.
OTOH, maybe a few well placed government investigations might have prevented the implosion of the financial industry, may have prevented the mine collapse, and may have prevented the BP spill. Maybe a few well placed government investigations might have saved the American taxpayer some money.
Obviously you were asleep when Bush was handing out the bailout checks.
Also, the reason Apple is focused on by the DoJ is because of the large share of Apple controlled music sales. The labels don't want that, just as much as Apple's competition. Music execs believe that if Apple didn't have a stranglehold on them, they could charge more for their music and increase their profit margin. Which, as a Republican, I'm surprised you're not supporting.
I think the point here is that the free market should run it's course (within reason) and not have unnecessarily regulation. Otherwise business has no incentive to succeed, and innovation is stifled.
Most political parties who lean towards socialism tend to favour excessive regulation. In your case the Democrats. In the UK, the Labour party was also keen on overregulation, and it's policies were based on ideologies rather than logic.
This is a tough one. Any company in Apple's position (as the third most valuable company in the US) would be on the radar screen constantly.
Apple simply has to live with the fact that bigness -- and they are now humongous in many segments -- brings with it scrutiny that we (as Apple consumers and shareholders) are not used to. Indeed, scrutiny that Apple is not used to.
The company has to learn to live with it, and watch its every step, it's every action, its every statement. It has to start second-guessing itself constantly. That is the new reality.
Totally agree...and there is one thing, although subtle, that will trigger these types of investigations...Amazon offered a deal...
"Amazon was seeking to obtain exclusive rights to sell new music a day earlier than everyone else, in exchange for special "MP3 Daily Deal" promotion of those songs on its website."
Note: they offered a deal but no retaliation if they didn't agree to it. There is no harm in asking...
"the DoJ is reportedly looking at Apple for asking the labels to not participate in Amazon's promotion, and its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first."
Note: Key words here..."its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first.".
I think the point here is that the free market should run it's course (within reason) and not have unnecessarily regulation. Otherwise business has no incentive to succeed, and innovation is stifled.
Most political parties who lean towards socialism tend to favour excessive regulation. In your case the Democrats. In the UK, the Labour party was also keen on overregulation, and it's policies were based on ideologies rather than logic.
Let us hear it for financial innovation, it has done so much good for the world. Yes, the unregulated, free market, non-transparent credit default swap is certainly the type of innovation we wish to incentivize and have more of. Just look at the benefit it has brought.
Successes leading to dominance brought about by customer preference and satisfaction should not be confused by dominance brought about by a monopolistic position. The line "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!" sums this up well (from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll )
OTOH, maybe a few well placed government investigations might have prevented the implosion of the financial industry, may have prevented the mine collapse, and may have prevented the BP spill. Maybe a few well placed government investigations might have saved the American taxpayer some money.
Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.
So let's drop the political nonsense on this board.
Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.
So let's drop the political nonsense on this board.
Let's not forget our system has three branches of Government and the built in checks and balances make the pronouncements of simplistic generalizations based on the likes or dislikes of one particular branch, be that the Executive, Judicial or Legislative, inaccurate in most cases.
Let us hear it for financial innovation, it has done so much good for the world. Yes, the unregulated, free market, non-transparent credit default swap is certainly the type of innovation we wish to incentivize and have more of. Just look at the benefit it has brought.
Evidence abounds to support your position for sure. Unfortunately a knee jerk political move to the other extreme has been shown by history to suffer the same issues in one way or another. The problem seems to be IMHO the perpetual propensity of the democratic system to encourage extreme view points to sway the electorate. It is almost impossible for balanced, fair and honest governance to exist due to man's inability not to try to cheat the system. The old joke 'benevolent dictatorship is the best answer' has some merit if it were ever possible for it to last. Perhaps the answer will lie with handing over power to a computer one day! I just hope it's made by Apple
"the music industry has chafed because Apple sets prices and controls the relationship to the music buyers."
.
Apple sets prices but the music industry fix prices, plus payola scams. The only digital relation they have is sue people, since they are too stupid to build a digital business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherperson
"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"
How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?
they were busted a few years ago by the NYS Attorney General for payola, I think. I dont quiet remember.
Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.
I'm sorry, but this is just the most pernicious idea that has ever been propounded*. Can you really imagine the recently passed health care bill being even proposed by Republicans, especially in its original form? Do you think the party in the White House has no impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court? There are absolutely enormous practical and ideological differences between the political parties in the US, and those differences have only solidified and widened over the last 50 years.
Don't confuse the fact that our political system was intentionally designed to mute these differences in its outcomes with the idea that they don't exist. And, in fact, if you actually look at legislation and policy, both the specifics and the focus, that are implemented when each party is in power, the differences, and the impact on our lives and quality of life, are readily apparent.
I would also take exception with the idea that both parties have screwed up our government, but that discussion would be too overtly political for this forum.
* Because it leads people to the conclusion that it doesn't matter who they vote for or who is elected. This is particularly dangerous when it leads people to do things like blindly vote against incumbents simply because they "want change", which really means they are fed up with the bottlenecks of our political system that prevent anything from being accomplished. The mistake they make is the idea that this is due to the "corrupting influence of incumbency" rather than the design of the system.
It only seems logical that Apple wouldn't want to invest in promoting songs on which they are guaranteed to not be able to make any first day sales on, that's likely a hefty portion of the revenues for some music.
What they should be looking at here is a) Amazon's ability to leverage it's power as a retailer at the expense of a competitor and b) the recording industry's attempts to manipulate the marketplace by favoring specific retailers.
This happens to any company that becomes successful in any market, because competitors that have a hard time competing with you complain to the government instead of trying to compete. Monopolies cannot be had without government providing them. In a free market consumers are in charge of who wins and who loses.
Anti-trust legislation is simply a way for those that can't compete to strike at their competitors with the heavy hand of government.
It doesn't surprise me, however, at the hypocrisy when things like this happen. As someone already stated, if this were to be Microsoft then most of you wouldn't have a problem with it.
The problem is anti-trust laws are no good for anyone, they were not created to stop monopolies like you were taught in school. For a good article on why anti-trust legislation should be eliminated altogether go here http://mises.org/daily/4397
Apple should be able to strike deals with whoever it wants, and so should any other organization. If consumers don't like it they'll find alternatives elsewhere, as long as the market is kept free enough for organizations to provide alternatives without the threat of force being used against them.
Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
So a music wholesaler has four customers, and he offers a sweet deal to one of them, while refusing to extend the same deal to the others.
He is then seriously surprised to find out one of his customers is not supporting the marketing his products anymore?
If that one of his customers is using its market power to illegitimately thwart competition, he'd likely be surprised. That was not a strategy that could legally be used.
I have no real opinion concerning the facts of this situation. It is just an inquiry, looking for more facts. No charges have been leveled.
what bull$hit. apple builds a successful business (being one of the very few companies with self-imposed integrity), with the music execs fighting them every step of the way, and now theyre complaining that apple is too powerful? i cant believe morons like this are going to be in charge of our healthcare, thanks obama. seriously, who in their right mind votes for democrats? oh, right, only delusional crazies who cant tell the difference between emotion and logic
meanwhile, banks are given blank checks with no strings attached to sit on their ass and do nothing to kick start the economy. maybe apple needs to give obama 900k..
Read it and weep:
----
Administration Plans to Strengthen Antitrust Rules
WASHINGTON ? President Obama?s top antitrust official this week plans to restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.
The company has to learn to live with it, and watch its every step, it's every action, its every statement. It has to start second-guessing itself constantly. That is the new reality.
They need not watch every step.
They only need to watch out when they try to screw their competitors. They need to ask them selves if their strategy would work if they had no real dominant position in the industry.
There are lots and lots of things that normal businesses can do which monopolists cannot do. For example, the corner store can sell things below cost, in an effort to get customers in the door.
But if Mall*Wart did it for months and months, to put every corner store out of business in a 20 mile radius, they would face anti-trust scrutiny.
Lots of other stuff too - bundling products for example (saying that if you want to buy the monopoly-power good, you must also buy lots of other stuff for which we have competition). Any business can offer bundled products - except that one who has monopoly power must not use that power to illegitimately thwart competition.
Comments
Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.
No, it doesn't all suck, IMHO. Government does a lot of good. A lot. I'll bet this will be a very quick investigation.
Congratulations on the most idiotic post of the month.
Why? Because you can't accept the truth?
Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.
OTOH, maybe a few well placed government investigations might have prevented the implosion of the financial industry, may have prevented the mine collapse, and may have prevented the BP spill. Maybe a few well placed government investigations might have saved the American taxpayer some money.
Obviously you were asleep when Bush was handing out the bailout checks.
Also, the reason Apple is focused on by the DoJ is because of the large share of Apple controlled music sales. The labels don't want that, just as much as Apple's competition. Music execs believe that if Apple didn't have a stranglehold on them, they could charge more for their music and increase their profit margin. Which, as a Republican, I'm surprised you're not supporting.
I think the point here is that the free market should run it's course (within reason) and not have unnecessarily regulation. Otherwise business has no incentive to succeed, and innovation is stifled.
Most political parties who lean towards socialism tend to favour excessive regulation. In your case the Democrats. In the UK, the Labour party was also keen on overregulation, and it's policies were based on ideologies rather than logic.
This is a tough one. Any company in Apple's position (as the third most valuable company in the US) would be on the radar screen constantly.
Apple simply has to live with the fact that bigness -- and they are now humongous in many segments -- brings with it scrutiny that we (as Apple consumers and shareholders) are not used to. Indeed, scrutiny that Apple is not used to.
The company has to learn to live with it, and watch its every step, it's every action, its every statement. It has to start second-guessing itself constantly. That is the new reality.
Totally agree...and there is one thing, although subtle, that will trigger these types of investigations...Amazon offered a deal...
"Amazon was seeking to obtain exclusive rights to sell new music a day earlier than everyone else, in exchange for special "MP3 Daily Deal" promotion of those songs on its website."
Note: they offered a deal but no retaliation if they didn't agree to it. There is no harm in asking...
"the DoJ is reportedly looking at Apple for asking the labels to not participate in Amazon's promotion, and its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first."
Note: Key words here..."its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first.".
Hey, if they want to start an anti-trust investigation, start with Walmart. IMO, this is just another government-led shakedown.
Who the hell do you think filed a request to have the DoJ investigate?
WalMart, Amazon and the others behind Apple.
Apple can file the same with the DoJ, if it wants.
How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?
I think the point here is that the free market should run it's course (within reason) and not have unnecessarily regulation. Otherwise business has no incentive to succeed, and innovation is stifled.
Most political parties who lean towards socialism tend to favour excessive regulation. In your case the Democrats. In the UK, the Labour party was also keen on overregulation, and it's policies were based on ideologies rather than logic.
Let us hear it for financial innovation, it has done so much good for the world. Yes, the unregulated, free market, non-transparent credit default swap is certainly the type of innovation we wish to incentivize and have more of. Just look at the benefit it has brought.
OTOH, maybe a few well placed government investigations might have prevented the implosion of the financial industry, may have prevented the mine collapse, and may have prevented the BP spill. Maybe a few well placed government investigations might have saved the American taxpayer some money.
Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.
So let's drop the political nonsense on this board.
Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.
So let's drop the political nonsense on this board.
Let's not forget our system has three branches of Government and the built in checks and balances make the pronouncements of simplistic generalizations based on the likes or dislikes of one particular branch, be that the Executive, Judicial or Legislative, inaccurate in most cases.
Let us hear it for financial innovation, it has done so much good for the world. Yes, the unregulated, free market, non-transparent credit default swap is certainly the type of innovation we wish to incentivize and have more of. Just look at the benefit it has brought.
Evidence abounds to support your position for sure. Unfortunately a knee jerk political move to the other extreme has been shown by history to suffer the same issues in one way or another. The problem seems to be IMHO the perpetual propensity of the democratic system to encourage extreme view points to sway the electorate. It is almost impossible for balanced, fair and honest governance to exist due to man's inability not to try to cheat the system. The old joke 'benevolent dictatorship is the best answer' has some merit if it were ever possible for it to last. Perhaps the answer will lie with handing over power to a computer one day! I just hope it's made by Apple
"the music industry has chafed because Apple sets prices and controls the relationship to the music buyers."
.
Apple sets prices but the music industry fix prices, plus payola scams. The only digital relation they have is sue people, since they are too stupid to build a digital business model.
"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"
How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?
they were busted a few years ago by the NYS Attorney General for payola, I think. I dont quiet remember.
Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.
I'm sorry, but this is just the most pernicious idea that has ever been propounded*. Can you really imagine the recently passed health care bill being even proposed by Republicans, especially in its original form? Do you think the party in the White House has no impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court? There are absolutely enormous practical and ideological differences between the political parties in the US, and those differences have only solidified and widened over the last 50 years.
Don't confuse the fact that our political system was intentionally designed to mute these differences in its outcomes with the idea that they don't exist. And, in fact, if you actually look at legislation and policy, both the specifics and the focus, that are implemented when each party is in power, the differences, and the impact on our lives and quality of life, are readily apparent.
I would also take exception with the idea that both parties have screwed up our government, but that discussion would be too overtly political for this forum.
* Because it leads people to the conclusion that it doesn't matter who they vote for or who is elected. This is particularly dangerous when it leads people to do things like blindly vote against incumbents simply because they "want change", which really means they are fed up with the bottlenecks of our political system that prevent anything from being accomplished. The mistake they make is the idea that this is due to the "corrupting influence of incumbency" rather than the design of the system.
"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"
How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?
Why? Because of this...
http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2...bying-2009.gif
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/RIAA-s....html?x=0&.v=1
Apple only ponied up 1.5M in lobbying efforts - the RIAA pays about that much (if not more) each quarter.
What they should be looking at here is a) Amazon's ability to leverage it's power as a retailer at the expense of a competitor and b) the recording industry's attempts to manipulate the marketplace by favoring specific retailers.
Anti-trust legislation is simply a way for those that can't compete to strike at their competitors with the heavy hand of government.
It doesn't surprise me, however, at the hypocrisy when things like this happen. As someone already stated, if this were to be Microsoft then most of you wouldn't have a problem with it.
The problem is anti-trust laws are no good for anyone, they were not created to stop monopolies like you were taught in school. For a good article on why anti-trust legislation should be eliminated altogether go here http://mises.org/daily/4397
Apple should be able to strike deals with whoever it wants, and so should any other organization. If consumers don't like it they'll find alternatives elsewhere, as long as the market is kept free enough for organizations to provide alternatives without the threat of force being used against them.
Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
So a music wholesaler has four customers, and he offers a sweet deal to one of them, while refusing to extend the same deal to the others.
He is then seriously surprised to find out one of his customers is not supporting the marketing his products anymore?
If that one of his customers is using its market power to illegitimately thwart competition, he'd likely be surprised. That was not a strategy that could legally be used.
I have no real opinion concerning the facts of this situation. It is just an inquiry, looking for more facts. No charges have been leveled.
what bull$hit. apple builds a successful business (being one of the very few companies with self-imposed integrity), with the music execs fighting them every step of the way, and now theyre complaining that apple is too powerful? i cant believe morons like this are going to be in charge of our healthcare, thanks obama. seriously, who in their right mind votes for democrats? oh, right, only delusional crazies who cant tell the difference between emotion and logic
meanwhile, banks are given blank checks with no strings attached to sit on their ass and do nothing to kick start the economy. maybe apple needs to give obama 900k..
Read it and weep:
----
Administration Plans to Strengthen Antitrust Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/bu...antitrust.html
WASHINGTON ? President Obama?s top antitrust official this week plans to restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.
The company has to learn to live with it, and watch its every step, it's every action, its every statement. It has to start second-guessing itself constantly. That is the new reality.
They need not watch every step.
They only need to watch out when they try to screw their competitors. They need to ask them selves if their strategy would work if they had no real dominant position in the industry.
There are lots and lots of things that normal businesses can do which monopolists cannot do. For example, the corner store can sell things below cost, in an effort to get customers in the door.
But if Mall*Wart did it for months and months, to put every corner store out of business in a 20 mile radius, they would face anti-trust scrutiny.
Lots of other stuff too - bundling products for example (saying that if you want to buy the monopoly-power good, you must also buy lots of other stuff for which we have competition). Any business can offer bundled products - except that one who has monopoly power must not use that power to illegitimately thwart competition.