Actually, that isn't really accurate. MS used their dominance of the PC market to force OEMs to not promote Netscape. They 'encouraged' the OEMs to only place the IE icon on the desktop and to avoid placing the Netscape icon there. They further 'encouraged' some not to even install Netscape. Incentives, like financial subsidies for marketing, were generally reported, and the threat was that MS would pull these marketing dollars. There were also claims of MS threatening some OEMs with losing their Windows license for not playing ball.
This, and a whole lot more. What the antitrust case against Microsoft exposed was Microsoft's argument that they could legitimately add anything to Windows without harming competition. Steve Ballmer was famously quoted as saying that they could "add a ham sandwich to Windows" if they wanted to. Essentially, they were defining innovation in terms of their ability to snuff competitors at will by leveraging Windows in any way they liked. This fairly shocking argument was rightly interpreted by the DoJ and the courts as a complete disregard for the laws on competition.
Quote:
This is not very different than Apple using their position to 'encourage' the labels from not taking part in Amazon's promotions. The reports are that Apple uses it's dominance in online music sales to encourage labels not to take part in Amazon's promotions. The reported threat would be Apple would refuse to provide marketing support through iTunes for those songs that were offered in Amazon's promotions. Sound familiar? Play ball with us, do not do freely do business with a competitor or you will suffer consequences.
As far as defining a monopoly, and whether Apple's dominance in online music is enough to be legally defined as a monopoly, it is clear that they certainly could be. A market monopoly doesn't have to have 100% of the market or even very close to 100%. It simply needs enough dominance to have significant influence on others access that market. If they was 'Steve's Corner Record Store' then a threat to pull marketing support if labels promoted with Amazon wouldn't be a threat. Only Apple's dominance makes it a threat.
QFT. However, I'm confident that Apple is not so arrogant and stupid that if the DoJ determines that a practice is questionable that they won't modify it voluntarily.
You could argue that to an extent, consumers have benefited from monopolies in some ways. The MS Office standard might be something people generally hate, but can you imagine working without it?
Easily. In fact this argument was made quite often by the technorati during the '80s and '90s, that competition in the technology industry was not only unnecessary, but even a bad thing. A bizarre argument.
Wouldn't the movie industries pressure on Netflix, where they forced them to wait a month after a DVD release before offering it to netflix subscribers amount to much the same behavior as Apple is being accused of here? Also, haven't they they trying to shut down the redbox movie rental kiosks (or force a similar deal on them as they did on Netflix?) Seems that Hollywood would want the whole thing to go away before they attract te attention of the doj.
I may have some disappointments about Adobe but not with their upgrade policy. They do not force you to upgrade.
Sure they do.
Get CS3 so Pshop will work natively on an Intel Mac, CS3 turns out buggier than both CS2 under Rosetta and the CS3 beta on my Mac Pro, now they say CS3 won't be supported on Snow Leopard. They charge more to upgrade from older versions, the quicker they push 'upgrades' out the door the quicker you cross that threshold into a more expensive upgrade.
because "closed" has nothing to do with any of this. This is terminology with no real meaning anyhow.
If it can be found that apple has enough power in a definable market to interfere with free competition, and it can be found that they've abused that power, then they might have a problem with the doj. Presumably the doj is looking at some complaints from competitors, and before anyone gripes about how the law is being used to "punish" apple for being "successful," understand that antitrust laws are rarely put into play when nobody has complained. These laws are entirely about competition.
Anyhow, the bottom line is, this is just a preliminary investigation. Everybody needs to hold their water, especially if they are having a difficult time getting a handle on the basic concepts.
Next, Verzion -- Exhibit A from that other bastion of consumer-friendliness -- will be in line outside the offices of DoJ wailing about Apple's 'walled garden'.
What a joke. Sometimes you have to wonder why US companies even bother becoming successful.
Hey, you lazy anti-government wannabees ... this is called an investigation into illegal activities. That is the job of the Fed. Look at the Constitution occasionally. Even Wall Street and Mom and Pop businesses need to know that possible improprieties will be checked out.
If the Feds overreach and play god, then sure, complain to high heaven, but being knee-jerk reactionaries carrying Glen Beck's water is pretty stupid.
Easily. In fact this argument was made quite often by the technorati during the '80s and '90s, that competition in the technology industry was not only unnecessary, but even a bad thing. A bizarre argument.
Monopolies often form naturally, like the one enjoyed by Office. If the monopolist doesn't abuse the power, it can be argued that it is a good situation, as it was chosen freely by the public.
Wouldn't the movie industries pressure on Netflix, where they forced them to wait a month after a DVD release before offering it to netflix subscribers amount to much the same behavior as Apple is being accused of here? Also, haven't they they trying to shut down the redbox movie rental kiosks (or force a similar deal on them as they did on Netflix?) Seems that Hollywood would want the whole thing to go away before they attract te attention of the doj.
Most titles are still available via Netflix on day one. Also, for most of those studios where Netflix entered into an agreement to delay, Netflix was provided a larger catalog of movies/tv shows for instant streaming.
Easily. In fact this argument was made quite often by the technorati during the '80s and '90s, that competition in the technology industry was not only unnecessary, but even a bad thing. A bizarre argument.
Are you fucking kidding me? Why don't you go ahead and tell that to every farmer and rancher in the early 1900s? Do yourself a favor and look up the American Industrial Revolution (specifically the creation of tycoons and their affects) and vertical integration. Apple now has their own proprietary chip. Pretty soon they will own the factories as well.
Monopolies often form naturally, like the one enjoyed by Office. If the monopolist doesn't abuse the power, it can be argued that it is a good situation, as it was chosen freely by the public.
I will have to defer to old Adam Smith on that subject:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Smith
The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken... The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers... The other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.
Here as elsewhere, Smith makes it plain that monopolies are bad economics as they invariably make prices higher than they would otherwise be. They also stifle innovation, which is perhaps more of an issue for us today than it was in Smith's day. When "natural" monopolies occur, such as in public utilities, they are typically regulated, with the understanding that the free market response to them would be high prices and insurmountable barriers to entry.
"The [Justice Dept.] is doing outreach," one Hollywood industry source told the paper. "You can't dictate terms to the industry. The Adobe thing is just inviting the wrath of everybody."
Since the iPhone isn't a monopoly, won't be a monopoly and since Apple has a right to protect its business the Adobe thing will go no where. Way to go, Adobe¡ You've done nothing but weaken the world of technology by first being negligent with your technology and now being passive-agreesive toward Apple and your customers. Can you be anymore awesome?¡
Quote:
"If Apple thinks it's going to increase its monopoly with the iPad, it should look at the history of other walled gardens," added another.
Hold up! The iPad has been on sale for less than two months and only went on sale outside the US this past Friday, while the tablet market has been going for a decade, YET Apple already has a "monopoly with the iPad"?
If true, perhaps one should look into why the previous decade of tablet makers were so incompetent that a company could come in a decade later and drink their milkshake in 1/60th the time.
Quote:
The inquiry began earlier this month after investigators became interested in allegations that Apple used its market power in an effort to prevent music labels from participating in exclusive music distribution deals with rival Amazon.
While their at it I love for them to look into the music labels first scoffing at Jobs' open letter to remove DRM, then offering it to Amazon but not to Apple.
Really? Lemme see: DOJ, anti-trust, using dominance to dictate terms... No, you're right, totally non-analogous.
Microsoft had a monopoly on a total category of devices (Personal Computer). MS Used its monopoly status to wipe out a competitorm- Netscape. At that time people were thinking that applications would run in the browser (container) and would make the OS irrelevant. Making IE the default browser and forcing OEMs (Dell, etc) to NOT include Netscape was deemed very anti-competitive for a company deemed a monopoly
Apple does not have a monopoly on music , video or smartphone development. They are not trying to wipe out Amazon with anti-competitive behavior (threatening not to carry the music if deals done with Amazon) The situations are totally different.
The Administration have left it up to BP so they have free time to worry about real problems now.
Of course, they need to increase their visibility, nothing worse for this administration than going 5 seconds without the complete attention of the media. And they need the money, beaurocratic surges with rainbow lollipop names aren't cheap. They're just licking their chops over anything Internet as a potential tax revenue stream. They'd love to have bigger cut of those iTunes sales, they're already taxing everything else to death.
And of course nothing is more important than going after the 30% share of the music industry sales that Apple commands. If the DOJ spent 5 minutes thinking this one through, 2 other facts would have torpedoed this stupid idea:
-iTunes has been the only growth sector of the music biz for almost a decade, the rest has been in sharp decline.
-You can load any other retailer's music into your Apple products.
Are you fucking kidding me? Why don't you go ahead and tell that to every farmer and rancher in the early 1900s? Do yourself a favor and look up the American Industrial Revolution (specifically the creation of tycoons and their affects) and vertical integration. Apple now has their own proprietary chip. Pretty soon they will own the factories as well.
I would ask you what you are talking about, but I presume even you don't know. I never mentioned vertical integration and would not have since it's got nothing whatsoever to do with anything I actually said.
Comments
Exept the only instance of Apple dictating terms is with developers tools and Apple is far from dominant with smartphones.
.
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
In the vast majority of antitrust investigations ... righteous indignation and a pointless fight until doomsday does not play a part.
But what fun is that?
Actually, that isn't really accurate. MS used their dominance of the PC market to force OEMs to not promote Netscape. They 'encouraged' the OEMs to only place the IE icon on the desktop and to avoid placing the Netscape icon there. They further 'encouraged' some not to even install Netscape. Incentives, like financial subsidies for marketing, were generally reported, and the threat was that MS would pull these marketing dollars. There were also claims of MS threatening some OEMs with losing their Windows license for not playing ball.
This, and a whole lot more. What the antitrust case against Microsoft exposed was Microsoft's argument that they could legitimately add anything to Windows without harming competition. Steve Ballmer was famously quoted as saying that they could "add a ham sandwich to Windows" if they wanted to. Essentially, they were defining innovation in terms of their ability to snuff competitors at will by leveraging Windows in any way they liked. This fairly shocking argument was rightly interpreted by the DoJ and the courts as a complete disregard for the laws on competition.
This is not very different than Apple using their position to 'encourage' the labels from not taking part in Amazon's promotions. The reports are that Apple uses it's dominance in online music sales to encourage labels not to take part in Amazon's promotions. The reported threat would be Apple would refuse to provide marketing support through iTunes for those songs that were offered in Amazon's promotions. Sound familiar? Play ball with us, do not do freely do business with a competitor or you will suffer consequences.
As far as defining a monopoly, and whether Apple's dominance in online music is enough to be legally defined as a monopoly, it is clear that they certainly could be. A market monopoly doesn't have to have 100% of the market or even very close to 100%. It simply needs enough dominance to have significant influence on others access that market. If they was 'Steve's Corner Record Store' then a threat to pull marketing support if labels promoted with Amazon wouldn't be a threat. Only Apple's dominance makes it a threat.
QFT. However, I'm confident that Apple is not so arrogant and stupid that if the DoJ determines that a practice is questionable that they won't modify it voluntarily.
But what fun is that?
Ask Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. I imagine that over drinks they still moan about how they were treated so unfairly by the government.
Presumably a typo, but I think it works brilliantly as a Zen statement.
Thanks.
It was a typo. But when I went to correct it, I realized the double meaning, and left it alone. I'm glad to know it was understood.
You could argue that to an extent, consumers have benefited from monopolies in some ways. The MS Office standard might be something people generally hate, but can you imagine working without it?
Easily. In fact this argument was made quite often by the technorati during the '80s and '90s, that competition in the technology industry was not only unnecessary, but even a bad thing. A bizarre argument.
Thanks.
It was a typo. But when I went to correct it, I realized the double meaning, and left it alone. I'm glad to know it was understood.
It is a thing not so much to be understood, as pondered.
I may have some disappointments about Adobe but not with their upgrade policy. They do not force you to upgrade.
Sure they do.
Get CS3 so Pshop will work natively on an Intel Mac, CS3 turns out buggier than both CS2 under Rosetta and the CS3 beta on my Mac Pro, now they say CS3 won't be supported on Snow Leopard. They charge more to upgrade from older versions, the quicker they push 'upgrades' out the door the quicker you cross that threshold into a more expensive upgrade.
because "closed" has nothing to do with any of this. This is terminology with no real meaning anyhow.
If it can be found that apple has enough power in a definable market to interfere with free competition, and it can be found that they've abused that power, then they might have a problem with the doj. Presumably the doj is looking at some complaints from competitors, and before anyone gripes about how the law is being used to "punish" apple for being "successful," understand that antitrust laws are rarely put into play when nobody has complained. These laws are entirely about competition.
Anyhow, the bottom line is, this is just a preliminary investigation. Everybody needs to hold their water, especially if they are having a difficult time getting a handle on the basic concepts.
+1 (....)
'Outreach'? This is overreach.
Next, Verzion -- Exhibit A from that other bastion of consumer-friendliness -- will be in line outside the offices of DoJ wailing about Apple's 'walled garden'.
What a joke. Sometimes you have to wonder why US companies even bother becoming successful.
Hey, you lazy anti-government wannabees ... this is called an investigation into illegal activities. That is the job of the Fed. Look at the Constitution occasionally. Even Wall Street and Mom and Pop businesses need to know that possible improprieties will be checked out.
If the Feds overreach and play god, then sure, complain to high heaven, but being knee-jerk reactionaries carrying Glen Beck's water is pretty stupid.
Sincerely
Thomas Jefferson
Easily. In fact this argument was made quite often by the technorati during the '80s and '90s, that competition in the technology industry was not only unnecessary, but even a bad thing. A bizarre argument.
Monopolies often form naturally, like the one enjoyed by Office. If the monopolist doesn't abuse the power, it can be argued that it is a good situation, as it was chosen freely by the public.
Wouldn't the movie industries pressure on Netflix, where they forced them to wait a month after a DVD release before offering it to netflix subscribers amount to much the same behavior as Apple is being accused of here? Also, haven't they they trying to shut down the redbox movie rental kiosks (or force a similar deal on them as they did on Netflix?) Seems that Hollywood would want the whole thing to go away before they attract te attention of the doj.
Most titles are still available via Netflix on day one. Also, for most of those studios where Netflix entered into an agreement to delay, Netflix was provided a larger catalog of movies/tv shows for instant streaming.
Easily. In fact this argument was made quite often by the technorati during the '80s and '90s, that competition in the technology industry was not only unnecessary, but even a bad thing. A bizarre argument.
Are you fucking kidding me? Why don't you go ahead and tell that to every farmer and rancher in the early 1900s? Do yourself a favor and look up the American Industrial Revolution (specifically the creation of tycoons and their affects) and vertical integration. Apple now has their own proprietary chip. Pretty soon they will own the factories as well.
Apple now has their own proprietary chip. Pretty soon they will own the factories as well.
So what? Vertical integration in monopolistic?!
You need to learn some Econ 101.
Monopolies often form naturally, like the one enjoyed by Office. If the monopolist doesn't abuse the power, it can be argued that it is a good situation, as it was chosen freely by the public.
I will have to defer to old Adam Smith on that subject:
The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken... The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers... The other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.
Here as elsewhere, Smith makes it plain that monopolies are bad economics as they invariably make prices higher than they would otherwise be. They also stifle innovation, which is perhaps more of an issue for us today than it was in Smith's day. When "natural" monopolies occur, such as in public utilities, they are typically regulated, with the understanding that the free market response to them would be high prices and insurmountable barriers to entry.
"The [Justice Dept.] is doing outreach," one Hollywood industry source told the paper. "You can't dictate terms to the industry. The Adobe thing is just inviting the wrath of everybody."
Since the iPhone isn't a monopoly, won't be a monopoly and since Apple has a right to protect its business the Adobe thing will go no where. Way to go, Adobe¡ You've done nothing but weaken the world of technology by first being negligent with your technology and now being passive-agreesive toward Apple and your customers. Can you be anymore awesome?¡
"If Apple thinks it's going to increase its monopoly with the iPad, it should look at the history of other walled gardens," added another.
Hold up! The iPad has been on sale for less than two months and only went on sale outside the US this past Friday, while the tablet market has been going for a decade, YET Apple already has a "monopoly with the iPad"?
If true, perhaps one should look into why the previous decade of tablet makers were so incompetent that a company could come in a decade later and drink their milkshake in 1/60th the time.
The inquiry began earlier this month after investigators became interested in allegations that Apple used its market power in an effort to prevent music labels from participating in exclusive music distribution deals with rival Amazon.
While their at it I love for them to look into the music labels first scoffing at Jobs' open letter to remove DRM, then offering it to Amazon but not to Apple.
Really? Lemme see: DOJ, anti-trust, using dominance to dictate terms... No, you're right, totally non-analogous.
Microsoft had a monopoly on a total category of devices (Personal Computer). MS Used its monopoly status to wipe out a competitorm- Netscape. At that time people were thinking that applications would run in the browser (container) and would make the OS irrelevant. Making IE the default browser and forcing OEMs (Dell, etc) to NOT include Netscape was deemed very anti-competitive for a company deemed a monopoly
Apple does not have a monopoly on music , video or smartphone development. They are not trying to wipe out Amazon with anti-competitive behavior (threatening not to carry the music if deals done with Amazon) The situations are totally different.
The Administration have left it up to BP so they have free time to worry about real problems now.
Of course, they need to increase their visibility, nothing worse for this administration than going 5 seconds without the complete attention of the media. And they need the money, beaurocratic surges with rainbow lollipop names aren't cheap. They're just licking their chops over anything Internet as a potential tax revenue stream. They'd love to have bigger cut of those iTunes sales, they're already taxing everything else to death.
And of course nothing is more important than going after the 30% share of the music industry sales that Apple commands. If the DOJ spent 5 minutes thinking this one through, 2 other facts would have torpedoed this stupid idea:
-iTunes has been the only growth sector of the music biz for almost a decade, the rest has been in sharp decline.
-You can load any other retailer's music into your Apple products.
Are you fucking kidding me? Why don't you go ahead and tell that to every farmer and rancher in the early 1900s? Do yourself a favor and look up the American Industrial Revolution (specifically the creation of tycoons and their affects) and vertical integration. Apple now has their own proprietary chip. Pretty soon they will own the factories as well.
I would ask you what you are talking about, but I presume even you don't know. I never mentioned vertical integration and would not have since it's got nothing whatsoever to do with anything I actually said.