DoJ's probe into Apple expanding beyond music

13468913

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 247
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post


    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.



    Fox news can rot your brain.
  • Reply 102 of 247
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ihxo View Post


    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.




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



    If in the early days of the iTunes music store, Walmart had used its clout with the recording industry to force the labels to only allow Apple to sell music on Walmart's terms, the DoJ would have likely investigated that too...possibly at Apple's request.
  • Reply 103 of 247
    s_ss_s Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daarom... View Post


    Replace Apple with Microsoft and 'cruddy Flex apps' with Netscape, and you might get some insight into their thinking...



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



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



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



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



    This looks a lot like collusion. The Music Ind. giving Amazon a better deal on product to drive the market away from Apple. It's kind of illegal.
  • Reply 104 of 247
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Nonsense. The law has always allowed for things like only offering advertising allowances if the partner complies with your rules. As long as you're not a monopoly and demanding better terms than anyone else, it's perfectly legal.



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





    There is a bit of a contradiction (or it seems anyway) in your statement.

    "The law has always allowed for things like only offering advertising allowances if the partner complies with your rules. As long as you're not a monopoly and demanding better terms than anyone else, it's perfectly legal."



    Exactly what rules would your partners have to comply with, if not specialized (better) terms? If those terms of your relationship extend to include prohibitions with whom and how you are able to do business, that would seem to be 'better' terms.
  • Reply 105 of 247
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by S_S View Post


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



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



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



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



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



    And in that case, then even if Apple is 'guilty', perhaps the DoJ needs to say to Amazon and the labels "tough shit, you got what you asked for. What goes around comes around." In legalese of course.
  • Reply 106 of 247
    zorinlynxzorinlynx Posts: 170member
    I'd buy an iPad right now if Apple allowed us to sideload apps without going through the app store.



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



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



    Shouldn't the option be there?
  • Reply 107 of 247
    s_ss_s Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


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



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



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



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



    But anyway, Walmart was never "investigated" and they actually were known, for a fact, to dictate terms of what they sold. And that goes well beyond music. Shoot, Walmart has never been investigated for destroying the economy of small towns everywhere.
  • Reply 108 of 247
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    "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."



    Then what's the problem? Wait till the other tablets hit the market and abandon the iPad. Enough people are already predicting the demise of the iPad because of the "walled garden". Why "help" Apple by forcing them to allow Flash on their devices. And as for having an iPad monopoly, where are the iPad "killers" anyway? You mean to say that because nobody else has yet chosen to produce a competing product a monopoly exists? So what's the solution then? Force Apple to stop production and distribution of the iPad until somebody puts something on the shelf at Best Buy, wait for them to sell a few, and then tell Apple it's okay to start selling the iPad again? I'm not so sure that's not how our screwed up government thinks about stuff like this.



    I still think absolutely nothing is going to come of these so far rumored investigations. Remember we only have unnamed sources claiming there is an investigation. Those unnamed sources could be Adobe flacks for all we know. It doesn't even make any common sense. But then common sense is a rather rare commodity in the halls of the federal government.



    LOL! Don't make me laugh! The other tablet makers don't even own their own OS. What you see crawling out from those Asian tech firms are nothing but cheap a** android tablets. So many in fact are hitting the market they have already cannibalized their own prices.

    And lets be honest here, the real culprit in the pc biz are MS and their tight nit partners. MS controls 97% of the pcs with the help of Dell and HP just to name a few.

    So if the DoJ wants to do something really useful they should mandate that the pc vendors accept any OS onto their system. Yeah! But that would be rather hard since most of the tech in the pc belongs to MS(intellectual property). Oh well, break up MS!

    We all know that MS conspires to keep competing OSes from the pc space. Don't play with me!
  • Reply 109 of 247
    oxygenhoseoxygenhose Posts: 236member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Of course what would torpedo the torpedoing of the investigation would be facts like:

    -iTunes has ~70% of online music sales. You know, the market in question.

    -The fact that you can load music from other retails onto Apple devices says little about Apple applying unfair pressure to help ensure the iTunes music store is that source. Apple 'allowing' music from other sources is simply survival. The iPod and iTunes store would have been dead in the water if iPods could only play Fairplay AAC. People would have bought alternatives if they couldn't play their pirated MP3s.

    -Online music sales, led primarily by iTunes, has been the only sector of growth for the music biz for most of the decade. That doesn't mean other players in the market should be suffocated.



    Wrong on all counts.



    - 70% does not a monopoly make. Regardless online sales are only 1 way music is sold, mail-order and retail are part of the same business. There have been a colorful menagerie of online music retails - their failures don't mean the successful should be punished. That's sone warped logic.

    -Having support for unrestricted open standards by making iTunes/iPods compatible with other music sources will destroy any case in court the DOJ might put together. Amazon, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. have even had lower prices for music. It's a moronic waste of time for the government to pursue this. I'm not sure how you've imagined support for various audio formats as an anti-competitive practice. Is the magic involved? Or is it some other bias?

    -iTunes growth is not responsible for other's failures. Anyone is still free to make their own market and devices, go to any electronics store and visit the MP3 player section. Further CD and DVD players 'compete' for audio devices. There is not even the hint of a monopoly here, this is all about the government noticing Apple's billions in cash sitting in the bank, and the need to invent a reason and try to take it.



    Where was the government, both past R and D administrations, as music has been stolen en mass by millions of people? There was no money in that, so it was up to the RIAA to pursue it themselves in court. This is the same government that is trying to use some idiotic notion of net neutrality to find another way to grow their beaurocracy and increase tax revenue. The economic message from this administration is very clear to the technology companies, they want a lot more control and money from this sector, and they're not above stoking the fears and 'gimme, gimme' mentality of their constituants.
  • Reply 110 of 247
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Which version of Flash should Apple put on the iPad?



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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    I say cut the crap Apple, put Flash on the iPad with a kill switch. let all the search engines in the door and let people choose what they want. And for Gawd's sake, open the phone to other carriers.



  • Reply 111 of 247
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post


    Wrong on all counts.



    - 70% does not a monopoly make. Regardless online sales are only 1 way music is sold, mail-order and retail are part of the same business. There have been a colorful menagerie of online music retails - their failures don't mean the successful should be punished. That's sone warped logic.



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post


    -Having support for unrestricted open standards by making iTunes/iPods compatible with other music sources will destroy any case in court the DOJ might put together. Amazon, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. have even had lower prices for music. It's a moronic waste of time for the government to pursue this. I'm not sure how you've imagined support for various audio formats as an anti-competitive practice. Is the magic involved? Or is it some other bias?



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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post


    -iTunes growth is not responsible for other's failures. Anyone is still free to make their own market and devices, go to any electronics store and visit the MP3 player section. Further CD and DVD players 'compete' for audio devices. There is not even the hint of a monopoly here, this is all about the government noticing Apple's billions in cash sitting in the bank, and the need to invent a reason and try to take it.



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post


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



    Interesting point of view.
  • Reply 112 of 247
    zmonsterzmonster Posts: 18member
    Hollywood can go F itself. I hope Apple can persuade all of these artists, bands, and movie producers to bypass the large production companies and post music to iTunes directly. CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN, CUT OUT THESE COMPANIES AND LAWYERS who are doing nothing other than skimming off the top, raising prices for consumers, and who are now going to the length of trying to frame Apple.
  • Reply 113 of 247
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


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



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



    There are so many things "reportedly" that I honestly don't give a shit anymore.
  • Reply 114 of 247
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Banalltv View Post


    Non-compete clauses are standard things as well, right?



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



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



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



    Or how about the DoJ kicking BPs ass for some of that JUSTICE, instead of letting them get away with dragging their heels on the cleanup operation.
  • Reply 115 of 247
    I was enjoying this healthy debate, nice bit of Adam Smith thrown in for good measures, bit of market theories etc. Been a good education reading about the DOJ and anti-trust measures against Microsoft. So I thank you all for an enlightening debate.



    Then somebody went for the jugular and threw in 'those Commie bastards', in there and I lost interest. Come on guys, wether your left or right of the spectrum lets not get sensationalist here!
  • Reply 116 of 247
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    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.



    It didn't take a Witch Hunt to prove when you have 97% of the market in all markets that you're a monopoly. However, Bill Gates got a slap on the wrist and a $250k fine by GW for all the trouble.
  • Reply 117 of 247
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.



    I can only assume you are being sarcastic. Before Apple's app store the only reason apps weren't developed for competitors phones was primarily interference from carriers. Now, because of Apple's ability to change this interference the app store for Android is growing at an astounding rate, just like Apple's did. Google should thank Apple for leading the way.
  • Reply 118 of 247
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    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.



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



    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.



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



    Quote:

    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%.



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



    Quote:

    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.



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



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



    This whole thing is a crock.
  • Reply 119 of 247
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post


    Al Capone was very successful.



    Bernie Madoff was very successful.



    BP was very successful.



    Roger Clemens was very successful.



    Should we not pick on them?



    Maybe you need to redefine the meaning of "success." Last time I looked, it didn't include cheating.



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



    Every one of your examples went down. I.e., ended up unsuccessful ultimately. (In BP's case, that's still happening).
  • Reply 120 of 247
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.



    As with the digital music download market before it, Apple were the first ones to make it really viable, profitable and work properly. Doesn't mean they have bad practises to get there. Just that they bothered to get the whole experience right.



    Remember, Apple was a nothing player in both digital music and mobile apps when they joined the game, and they quickly dominated them because they provided something everyone wanted.



    And of further note. In neither of these markets has Apple's way of conducting business changed. They're doing the same way they always have.



    The iPhone OS is a component of a product in a number of markets, not a market in itself, so Apple can't have a monopoly on it.
Sign In or Register to comment.