Another common misunderstanding. The investigation into antitrust violations at Microsoft began with a complaint to the FTC. It didn't take a lot of investigation by the DoJ (which took up the matter after the FTC deadlocked) to determine that not only did Microsoft have the requisite market power, but also that they'd been abusing it left and right to the deliberate detriment of competitors. Still it took nearly ten years for this case to wend its way through the courts, primarily because Microsoft adamantly refused to acknowledge that any of its behavior was illegal and make any changes. It's a situation they could easily have avoided. They chose to go head-to-head with the government, and lost -- just as everyone who was paying attention at the time knew they would. Microsoft's approach was supremely arrogant and amazingly stupid.
In the vast majority of antitrust investigations, even assuming the DoJ finds something they don't like, the company in question agrees to make some changes to the way they operate, and life goes on. Unlike the Microsoft case, righteous indignation and a pointless fight until doomsday does not play a part.
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...
I will have to defer to old Adam Smith on that subject:
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.
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.
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...
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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Eric Holder should investigate the governments subsidies to General Motors, the AIG dominance in the insurance industry, the SEC's ignoring of Bernie Madoff, but instead they refuse to acknowledge that Radical Islam is a problem and instead go after Apple Computer. I can buy an iPad device from several makers, and soon more. I can buy music from Amazon, Apple, etc. The current Justice Department is made up of bunch of Socialists and Communists.
As a Stumptown resident -- the mecca for recipients of government handouts, with one of the highest unemployment rates among major US cities -- it is not surprising that you espouse such a view.
Who is Glen Beck?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Knowing the Feds are on the job is such a comfort. Only good can come from this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb
The music industry, the movie industry are nothing but walled gardens with attack dog lawyers on long leashes ready to go after anyone that dare make a copy of their products. These cartels like calling the kettle black and will do what ever it takes to leverage the law to do their bidding. Monopolies are legal abusive monopolies are not.
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.
It really comes down to Apple having a big wad of cash and politicians needing some of that for their campaigns. Microsoft didn't understand that connection in the 90s but now they do. Apple needs to open up their wallets a bit to deflect the DoJ. Obama will pull them in when Apple starts fanning cash at him.
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.
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.
Good call. The music labels seem to feel they are entitled to the upper hand in all of their relationships.
Comments
Another common misunderstanding. The investigation into antitrust violations at Microsoft began with a complaint to the FTC. It didn't take a lot of investigation by the DoJ (which took up the matter after the FTC deadlocked) to determine that not only did Microsoft have the requisite market power, but also that they'd been abusing it left and right to the deliberate detriment of competitors. Still it took nearly ten years for this case to wend its way through the courts, primarily because Microsoft adamantly refused to acknowledge that any of its behavior was illegal and make any changes. It's a situation they could easily have avoided. They chose to go head-to-head with the government, and lost -- just as everyone who was paying attention at the time knew they would. Microsoft's approach was supremely arrogant and amazingly stupid.
In the vast majority of antitrust investigations, even assuming the DoJ finds something they don't like, the company in question agrees to make some changes to the way they operate, and life goes on. Unlike the Microsoft case, righteous indignation and a pointless fight until doomsday does not play a part.
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...
I will have to defer to old Adam Smith on that subject:
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.
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.
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...
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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Eric Holder should investigate the governments subsidies to General Motors, the AIG dominance in the insurance industry, the SEC's ignoring of Bernie Madoff, but instead they refuse to acknowledge that Radical Islam is a problem and instead go after Apple Computer. I can buy an iPad device from several makers, and soon more. I can buy music from Amazon, Apple, etc. The current Justice Department is made up of bunch of Socialists and Communists.
You really ARE ignorant.
As a Stumptown resident -- the mecca for recipients of government handouts, with one of the highest unemployment rates among major US cities -- it is not surprising that you espouse such a view.
Who is Glen Beck?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
thats the way to stop them.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Seriously?
Knowing the Feds are on the job is such a comfort. Only good can come from this...
The music industry, the movie industry are nothing but walled gardens with attack dog lawyers on long leashes ready to go after anyone that dare make a copy of their products. These cartels like calling the kettle black and will do what ever it takes to leverage the law to do their bidding. Monopolies are legal abusive monopolies are not.
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.
It really comes down to Apple having a big wad of cash and politicians needing some of that for their campaigns. Microsoft didn't understand that connection in the 90s but now they do. Apple needs to open up their wallets a bit to deflect the DoJ. Obama will pull them in when Apple starts fanning cash at him.
Aha! Someone here gets the real issue.
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.
I realise that anti-competitive practices are ultimately not good for the industry and consumers. .
Please name an 'anti-competitive practice' engaged in by Apple.
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.
Good call. The music labels seem to feel they are entitled to the upper hand in all of their relationships.