Apple about to get some unwanted attention
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20
Looks like Apple has gotten the attention it so desired. Fair enough. If they are in the wrong I hope they get slammed back to the Stone Age, but if found innocent, I hope everyone gets off their ass.
Looks like Apple has gotten the attention it so desired. Fair enough. If they are in the wrong I hope they get slammed back to the Stone Age, but if found innocent, I hope everyone gets off their ass.
Comments
The sources also said that investigators informed them they are just on a fact-finding mission at this point. There is nothing to indicate that Apple will be accused of anything.
Hoping Apple gets "slammed back to the Stone Age" if they are "in the wrong" seems a little premature, since they haven't been accused of anything.
Also, I'm at a loss to know what "getting the attention it so desired" even means. Are you saying that Apple hoped to get the attention of the DOJ? Or that the fact that Apple is a business that wishes to draw attention to their products is somehow a setup for ironic comeuppance, should they receive unwanted attention from regulators? Or maybe publicly eschewing Flash is the setup? Or maybe that was just random snark you didn't think about very hard?
From the linked article:
Hoping Apple gets "slammed back to the Stone Age" if they are "in the wrong" seems a little premature, since they haven't been accused of anything.
Also, I'm at a loss to know what getting the attention the so desired even means. Are you saying that Apple hoped to get the attention of the DOJ? Or that the fact that Apple is a business that wishes to draw attention to their products is somehow a setup for ironic comeuppance, should they receive unwanted attention from regulators? Or what?
Like the FBI, the DOJ does not start investigations unless it plans to make a move against someone. That is pretty much their history. Why bother in the first place? Second, did Apple really think that people would not take a notice to their (for your sake) alleged biz practices? Like I said and you seemed to have missed, if they are free of wrong doing then fine, but if not, I hope they get hit hard. Hard enough to hurt. Fair is fair.
Like the FBI, the DOJ does not start investigations unless it plans to make a move against someone. That is pretty much their history. Why bother in the first place? Second, did Apple really think that people would not take a notice to their (for your sake) alleged biz practices? Like I said and you seemed to have missed, if they are free of wrong doing then fine, but if not, I hope they get hit hard. Hard enough to hurt. Fair is fair.
Actually, this is quite wrong. The DoJ investigates antitrust complaints primarily on a complaint basis. Consequently, they look at an awful lot of complaints without taking any further action. The article actually indicates this quite clearly, but you seem to have chosen to disbelieve it.
Actually, this is quite wrong. The DoJ investigates antitrust complaints primarily on a complaint basis. Consequently, they look at an awful lot of complaints without taking any further action. The article actually indicates this quite clearly, but you seem to have chosen to disbelieve it.
Actually I choose to believe my experience in govt work as well has having a few friends that work for the DOJ. Sorry if I do not take you "anonymous" Internet statement as a point of fact. I will go with sources that I know and work with on a daily basis. And I will clarify it again. If there is no basis or proof of wrong doing on Apples part then good, but if they are wrong, then they should face judgment. Dear God, I hope this is clear enough for you now.
Actually I choose to believe my experience in govt work as well has having a few friends that work for the DOJ. Sorry if I do not take you "anonymous" Internet statement as a point of fact. I will go with sources that I know and work with on a daily basis. And I will clarify it again. If there is no basis or proof of wrong doing on Apples part then good, but if they are wrong, then they should face judgment. Dear God, I hope this is clear enough for you now.
I see. Nobody knows anything about this but you. If I'd realized that this was going to be terms of this thread, I'd have stayed away from the start.
I see. Nobody knows anything about this but you. If I'd realized that this was going to be terms of this thread, I'd have stayed away from the start.
Here you go. I did all the work for you..... By the way, I could not care less if you stay or go or whatever. Don't like what I say or express as my opinion then do whatever you want. Are purposely not understanding the part where I say that if Apple is not guilty of any wrong doing so much the better, but if they are guilty then they should be punished? Is that not appearing in your browser? Anyway, so that we are now super-duper clear you can gain further insight from the New Oxford American Dictionary.
opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge : I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance | that, in my opinion, is dead right.
• the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing : the changing climate of opinion.
• ( opinion of) an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something : I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved.
• a formal statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter : seeking a second opinion from a specialist.
• Law a formal statement of reasons for a judgment given.
• Law a lawyer's advice on the merits of a case.
PHRASES
be of the opinion that believe or maintain that : economists are of the opinion that the economy could contract.
a matter of opinion something not capable of being proven either way.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin opinio(n-), from the stem of opinari ‘think, believe.’
Got a chip on your shoulder, sappo?
Go back to post number 4. Then go back to my post number 3, then 5. When you are done then come back and ask me again. Mmmm..kk?
Go back to post number 4. Then go back to my post number 3, then 5. When you are done then come back and ask me again. Mmmm..kk?
Don't need to. The chip is quite obvious and you aren't playing nice. You don't know how the DoJ or FBI works despite what you say. Being recalcitrant about it won't change anything.
Don't need to. The chip is quite obvious and you aren't playing nice. You don't know how the DoJ or FBI works despite what you say. Being recalcitrant about it won't change anything.
By all means please explain how it works as you have much better sources than mine. Can't wait for your illumination.
Till then b-bye.
Lay off the dude. Who else but someone from Helsinki would know exactly what is going on inside the Beltway?
Uh, do you see the writing under my name? Sort of mentions my location but not my nationality. Being in Finland does not necessarily make me a Finn just as your ability to use a computer does not necessarily afford you intelligence.
Insert shoulder shrug. However, because like the "enlighten one" of the previous post who did bother to read but did bother to make assumptions, I will fill you in. Take notes. I currently live here because I work for the Gubment and they (wait for it) saw fit to "post" me here. Pretty clear now. The same invitation is extended to you as well. Prove me wrong in what I say when you are done pontificating.
Uh, do you see the writing under my name? Sort of mentions my location but not my nationality. Being in Finland does not necessarily make me a Finn just as your ability to use a computer does not necessarily afford you intelligence.
Insert shoulder shrug. However, because like the "enlighten one" of the previous post who did bother to read but did bother to make assumptions, I will fill you in. Take notes. I currently live here because I work for the Gubment and they (wait for it) saw fit to "post" me here. Pretty clear now. The same invitation is extended to you as well. Prove me wrong in what I say when you are done pontificating.
Ummm, no one said you are a Finn. But last I looked, Helsinki is a very long way from Washington. You started the thread and have made empty post after empty post without ever providing a shred of evidence that your assertion is true. Who would bother to prove you incorrect when you've never said anything that would make anyone believe YOU"RE correct???
Ummm, no one said you are a Finn. But last I looked, Helsinki is a very long way from Washington. You started the thread and have made empty post after empty post without ever providing a shred of evidence that your assertion is true. Who would bother to prove you incorrect when you've never said anything that would make anyone believe YOU"RE correct???
Actually if you go back to post 4, you will see that Dr. Millhouse made this distinction without providing proof. I do however like the deflection technique you use. You work for BP? Ohhh that's right, I'm not in Louisiana so I would not know about this.
My assertions come from my friends that work for the DOJ. I tend to trust her. Her best guesses are better than most peoples facts, especially on this forum. Historically the FBI and DOJ do not go after people or release statements just for the fun of it or to grab a headline. I could not care one way or another. Like I stated several time, if Apple gets popped, good, if not, good. The problem I made here was not falling in lock step with the Steve Jobs pants dwellers who think Apple can do no wrong and that the world is out to get them. If this applies to you then so be it. If not, then once again so be it. To be crystal clear, I did not start the: " you are incorrect" statement. You need to go back to your buddies who decided to do their typical drive-by postings.
Actually, this is quite wrong. The DoJ investigates antitrust complaints primarily on a complaint basis. Consequently, they look at an awful lot of complaints without taking any further action. The article actually indicates this quite clearly, but you seem to have chosen to disbelieve it.
Actually I choose to believe my experience in govt work as well has having a few friends that work for the DOJ. Sorry if I do not take you "anonymous" Internet statement as a point of fact. I will go with sources that I know and work with on a daily basis. And I will clarify it again. If there is no basis or proof of wrong doing on Apples part then good, but if they are wrong, then they should face judgment. Dear God, I hope this is clear enough for you now.
What exactly do you disagree with in Dr Millmoss' statement? He clearly said the DoJ investigates based on complaints. This is obvious and factual. Unless you and your 'DoJ friend' think the DoJ employee psychics in order to foretell crimes and then launch investigations based of their seers.
You took issue with his statement but instead of countering it, you simply state some wishy-washy "if they are innocent then good, if not then nail 'em". That is a great opinion to have. But it really doesn't explain what about Millmoss's factual statement about how DoJ investigations are started (and sometimes dropped) that you disagree with..
I actually, agree with you about the case itself. If Apple did pressure the music companies to not take part in competitors promotions, I see little difference with MS pressuring OEMs not to load Netscape, AOL, Dr. DOS on their systems. Both would seem to be examples of taking advantage of market position to restrict trade. I don't think Apple should be "slammed back to the Stone Age", but certainly, they should be required to re-evaluate their treatment of partners.
But, if you are going to disagree with Millmoss' statement, at least explain what you see as wrong in his statement.
What exactly do you disagree with in Dr Millmoss' statement? He clearly said the DoJ investigates based on complaints. This is obvious and factual. Unless you and your 'DoJ friend' think the DoJ employee psychics in order to foretell crimes and then launch investigations based of their seers.
You took issue with his statement but instead of countering it, you simply state some wishy-washy "if they are innocent then good, if not then nail 'em". That is a great opinion to have. But it really doesn't explain what about Millmoss's factual statement about how DoJ investigations are started (and sometimes dropped) that you disagree with..
I actually, agree with you about the case itself. If Apple did pressure the music companies to not take part in competitors promotions, I see little difference with MS pressuring OEMs not to load Netscape, AOL, Dr. DOS on their systems. Both would seem to be examples of taking advantage of market position to restrict trade. I don't think Apple should be "slammed back to the Stone Age", but certainly, they should be required to re-evaluate their treatment of partners.
But, if you are going to disagree with Millmoss' statement, at least explain what you see as wrong in his statement.
I see quite a big difference between old MS behavior of completely prohibiting certain software loadouts on shipping computers and Intel's ridiculously large kickbacks tied to not using any AMD processors in any other computer of the "Intel Inside" era; compare this to Apple not vigorously promoting products which were given preferential release date treatment elsewhere. Apple still sold the music, it was still searchable the same as all the other music, it just wasn't put on heavy rotation at the top of the iTunes page.
There's a big difference between throttling competition by unfair kickbacks, and only giving pedestrian equal treatment when a competitor gets preference from the recording company. Remember it was the recording company that set the no sales before date, not Apple. Apple doesn't take placement fees for iTunes, they carrot the placement with receiving exclusive content. So giving any retailer preferential waiving of that date is choosing sides, and once you choose sides why would you expect the loser to give you the free and preferential advertising placement?
I see quite a big difference between old MS behavior of completely prohibiting certain software loadouts on shipping computers and Intel's ridiculously large kickbacks tied to not using any AMD processors in any other computer of the "Intel Inside" era; compare this to Apple not vigorously promoting products which were given preferential release date treatment elsewhere. Apple still sold the music, it was still searchable the same as all the other music, it just wasn't put on heavy rotation at the top of the iTunes page.
There's a big difference between throttling competition by unfair kickbacks, and only giving pedestrian equal treatment when a competitor gets preference from the recording company. Remember it was the recording company that set the no sales before date, not Apple. Apple doesn't take placement fees for iTunes, they carrot the placement with receiving exclusive content. So giving any retailer preferential waiving of that date is choosing sides, and once you choose sides why would you expect the loser to give you the free and preferential advertising placement?
True, it is obviously not identical. But putting Apple's marketing clout behind certain labels or songs is a valuable offering, certainly comparable to MS offering/withholding co-marketing dollars to OEMs. There was nothing wrong with MS providing funding for marketing to their partners. Using it as a hammer to later modify behavior was a problem.
Also, Amazon is reported to have backed off of the 24 advance exclusivity, which would make it more of a one day sale but with the same street date as others. Apple could negotiate a similar or better price. Instead, Apple is reportedly still pressuring labels not to take part in this modified promotion, lest they lose iTunes placement for marketing.
The expert from Finland clearly does not know politics play a role in many DOJ investigations. Apple has gotten large, too large for some. This investigation will go away sooner rather than later. Perhaps increasing donations to Dem candidates and the DNC will keep the DOJ off their backs.
True, it is obviously not identical. But putting Apple's marketing clout behind certain labels or songs is a valuable offering, certainly comparable to MS offering/withholding co-marketing dollars to OEMs. There was nothing wrong with MS providing funding for marketing to their partners. Using it as a hammer to later modify behavior was a problem.
Also, Amazon is reported to have backed off of the 24 advance exclusivity, which would make it more of a one day sale but with the same street date as others. Apple could negotiate a similar or better price. Instead, Apple is reportedly still pressuring labels not to take part in this modified promotion, lest they lose iTunes placement for marketing.
Using clout to modify behavior is normally OK in the business world, you just cannot use your clout to illegally keep others out of e market. Not advertising something preferentially is not even in the same zip code as illegal lock-outs.
Fighting over pricing is still very legal, that can go on all day/month/year long as long as the prices aren't of the lock-out variety. And nobody has intimated they are in the Apple/Amazon tiff.
Using clout to modify behavior is normally OK in the business world, you just cannot use your clout to illegally keep others out of e market. Not advertising something preferentially is not even in the same zip code as illegal lock-outs.
Fighting over pricing is still very legal, that can go on all day/month/year long as long as the prices aren't of the lock-out variety. And nobody has intimated they are in the Apple/Amazon tiff.
Anti-competitive behavior encompasses more that just keeping others out of a market. It also includes unfairly hampering trade between parties and exerting undue influence within the market to maintain dominance.
Negotiating better prices is obviously legal. If Apple negotiated lower prices, they win. If Amazon gets better pricing, then Apple can go to the labels and demand the same or better prices. If they are found to have monopoly power within the market, then they cannot go to the labels and demand that they raise Amazon's prices or dictate the other terms of contracts with Amazon.
MS used the threat of withholding marketing resources from their partners to dictate to them how they could deal with and promote Netscape. In statements from some OEMs, it was to pressure the OEM to avoid placing the Netscape shortcut on the desktop of their PC, though they could still install it. If these stories today are true, then Apple is using the threat of withholding marketing resources from their partners to dictate to them how they are allowed to deal with and promote the labels products. It is to pressure the labels to avoid placing their songs in Amazons main promotion, though they can still sell them.
If Apple's share and influence within the online music market is found to be less than dominant, then there is no case. Behavior that is illegal for a 'monopoly' is often fair for lesser players.
If I had my way, the DoJ would pause their investigation into Apple and launch and very public and thorough investigation into the practices of the music labels, RIAA and MPAA. These cartels possess far more power within their markets, often exercise by interfering with the business and trade of others and use their influence to maintain their position. These seem to be, by almost any definition, monopoly players that have abused their positions. After all of that is settled, they can go and have a discussion with Apple and their partners and determine if Apple's position amounts to a legally defined 'monoploy' and then if their behavior was actionable.