Of course what would torpedo the torpedoing of the investigation would be facts like:
-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.
Get your history straight.
iPods could play more than Fairplay AAC files because iPods debuted over a year before the iTMS even existed, not because they would have been dead in the water otherwise. [iPod introduced in Oct 2001. iTMS opened in April 2003]
And how is Apple trying to "suffocate" Amazon, by complaining when Amazon gets a competitive advantage? Especially when Amazon was allowed to sell non-DRM'd files before Apple was... as a way to get Apple to agree to variable pricing of songs sold on iTMS.
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
"the mobile app retail market"???
What the heck is that?
Are apps for Windows phone, Symbian, Android, Blackberry, and iPhone all considered to be in the same "mobile app retail market"?
If so, then I guess it is good news for Apple that Android is becoming so popular - because it makes it even less likely that Apple can be perceived as having a monopoly-position in that market.
I'm surprised that there are this many comments on this topic. Nothing will happen to Apple. They were merely asking for equal treatment. The only "threat" that Apple made was to not make it a featured headline on iTunes.
The issue here isn't Apple. It really is everybody else. iTunes is successful because of the iPod and not the other way around. To the other hardware manufacturers, build things that people enjoy to use that are of high quality and easy to use. Apple isn't competing with you on price. They've begun to show with the iPod, iPhone & iPad that MS's true monopoly solely comes from Office and nothing else. Compatibility only goes so far because the PC (or whatever it's changing into now) is becoming a consumer market.
Apple may have other potential antitrust issues coming up but it doesn't have to anything to do with movies, Music, Flash and TV shows. The upcoming potential problem is the closed nature and the review process of the iPhone OS/App Store and if Apple limits the ability of mobile Safari in support of web-based applications due to App Store sales and iAds.
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.
But the main reason why Apple had to tie their iTunes Store songs to their iPod was because the Music labels required that a DRM be in place before they allowed their music to be sold online. Apple came up with "FairPlay". And made it work on their iPods. This satisfied the Music labels. Apple was not about to license their "FairPlay" DRM to other MP3 players because the Music label also required Apple to maintain the DRM if it got hacked. So Apple wasn't about to offer support for "FairPlay" on other MP3 players. Thus the music purchased from the iTunes can only be played on an iPod. Unless you removed the DRM. Which wasn't that hard to do using the iTunes software.
Microsoft on the other hand came out with "Play for Sure" and licensed it to any MP3 player that requires a DRM to play downloaded music. And to any online sites that wanted to sell music. "Play for Sure" was so problematic and unreliable that even Microsoft didn't want to use it on their Zune. Thus they came out with "Zune DRM" for their Zune. Which they did not license and only played music bought from their "Zune MarketPlace" music store.
But all of this is ancient history. In technology years. Once the Music label stop requiring DRM on downloaded music, you can play any downloaded music on any device. And all DRM free music can easily be converted to any format that your MP3 player requires. But by this time, Apple iTunes Store was already beginning to dominate online music because of the popularity of the iPods.
I meant more to prevent valuable employees leaving to work for your competitors, see the quote I was replying to.
Almost every company (especially tech companies) have that clause written into the contracts, whether they'd actually be able to enforce them is another matter altogether.
And how is an informal arrangement not to poach employees seen as "preventing valuable employees leaving". It will make the process a passive, rather than active hiring process, i.e. if somebody wants to go and work for Google from Apple, they still can. Google just weren't going to say to Apple employees "Do you want to come work for us for x, y and z benefits/bonuses".
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.
I said this in another post. After WWII, we told Japan no more navy, etc and we would be their allies. In turn while we poorer billions into defense, they got busy making great cars and extremetech for the time. We also went from #3 in terms of global Internet speed just 10-15, maybe shorter years ago. We now stand at # 28. Shameful.
Most of these countries you can watch tv anywhere not like the monopoly here is and sine is regulated. It should be a required utility. Not the way it is now.
Really? Lemme see: DOJ, anti-trust, using dominance to dictate terms... No, you're right, totally non-analogous.
This is just silly and rather glib. Microsoft was almost the only PC operating system at the time. They had something like 80% - 90% of the market. What percent of the smartphone market do you imagine the iPhone has? They aren't even the leading vendor. Monopolies, per se, are not illegal. But using a monopoly in one market to extend a monopoly to another market is illegal and Microsoft's position was found to be officially a monopoly position. I hope the arguments presented in the DOJ are more rigorous than those presented here.
The big issue here is that Apple has received its clout not because of force like Microsoft but because people actually want to buy their products. No one really wants to buy cheap knock offs they have to because they can't afford the real thing or they were duped by unscrupulous individuals feeding on people's naivety.
Because people want Apple's products they are able to use purchasing power to leverage deals. There's no difference to what the supermarkets do or the department stores or whatever. More money means more buying power more buying power means better deals.
Manufacturers generally don't mind being pushed to the limits by Apple because they know Apple can sell their products which can only be good in the long term for them. Sure they whinge about the pressures to manufacture but it means good business for them.
No one wants a Zune or an XBox 360 and as a result Microsoft doesn't have as much buying power as Apple and manufacturers don't really want to do deals with a company that they know can't sell their products. As a result the Zune sells for more or roughly the same as an iPod but people would then look at the two and side with the iPod because they trust the brand.
The music industry is whinging because Apple has buying power over them and therefore able to push them around. This is not bad for the customer because it means that they get a better deal on their music. Meanwhile while they are whinging the music industry is raping the artists. Why isn't DOJ having a go at the music industry?
Apple's iTunes wasn't allowed to sell DRM free music or at least had to push damn hard to get it meanwhile Amazon waltzes in and steals Apple's thunder. Apple cried foul and threatened the music industry and now they have DRM free music across the board. Apple isn't a monopoly here because that music can be played on other players that support the format. They just can't use iTunes to get the music on those players. Why should Apple support players they don't make with their software? They're not entitled to do so so why bother? Meanwhile the customer wins again, Apple wins, the music industry continues to rape the artists.
DVDs have DRM and the movie industry enforces DRM on all their videos. Because only Apple supports the FairPlay DRM then only Apple devices can access those videos. This isn't a monopoly situation either because Apple is FORCED into applying DRM and they are using their DRM. No one wants to license the DRM anyway so why should Apple support players that don't want to pay their way?
The App Store is a bone of contention for many players but if developers don't like Apple's way of controlling their OWN product then there's nothing stopping those developers from playing on a different field. You don't whinge at the cricket field because you want to play rugby so why whinge at the App Store because you want to play Android's rules?
When you break it all down Apple hasn't done anything wrong. They've played a better game that's all. They try to play fair and by the rules but the losing teams always want to fight the win despite the fact they played a crap game.
So Apple is just supposed to sit back and watch music companies give a competitor a competitive advantage in sales of those songs, all while promoting those same songs on iTMS?
Apple isn't trying to crush a competitor - like Microsoft tried to crush Netscape - Apple is just balking at a competitor being given unique advantages in the market.
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies. I don't expect MS to do it, Walmart to do it nor Apple to do it.
iPods could play more than Fairplay AAC files because iPods debuted over a year before the iTMS even existed, not because they would have been dead in the water otherwise. [iPod introduced in Oct 2001. iTMS opened in April 2003]
And how is Apple trying to "suffocate" Amazon, by complaining when Amazon gets a competitive advantage? Especially when Amazon was allowed to sell non-DRM'd files before Apple was... as a way to get Apple to agree to variable pricing of songs sold on iTMS.
6 posts in and already a 'well duh' post.
I never said Apple should, could or would have ever considered not allowing MP3 or music from other sources. I actually said that to have done so would have been suicide from their players, so of course they wouldn't have. The 'history' is sort of irrelevant to the point. Yes, it shows why they initially 'allowed' MP3s. And I explained why they would continue to 'allow' MP3s.
Someone posted a post suggesting that because Apple 'allows' music from other sources, it would kill the DoJ case, with the implication that this shows Apple control nothing. But, as your own posts shows, the reasons for Apple 'allowing' us to play our own music was far more pragmatic to the success of the iPod than showing some sort of altruistic favour to the music companies and consumers.
Apple negotiates their own competitive advantages as well. Their competitors shouldn't decide Apple's terms of trade or business through their partners either.
But the main reason why Apple had to tie their iTunes Store songs to their iPod was because the Music labels required that a DRM be in place before they allowed their music to be sold online. Apple came up with "FairPlay". And made it work on their iPods. This satisfied the Music labels. Apple was not about to license their "FairPlay" DRM to other MP3 players because the Music label also required Apple to maintain the DRM if it got hacked. So Apple wasn't about to offer support for "FairPlay" on other MP3 players. Thus the music purchased from the iTunes can only be played on an iPod. Unless you removed the DRM. Which wasn't that hard to do using the iTunes software.
Microsoft on the other hand came out with "Play for Sure" and licensed it to any MP3 player that requires a DRM to play downloaded music. And to any online sites that wanted to sell music. "Play for Sure" was so problematic and unreliable that even Microsoft didn't want to use it on their Zune. Thus they came out with "Zune DRM" for their Zune. Which they did not license and only played music bought from their "Zune MarketPlace" music store.
But all of this is ancient history. In technology years. Once the Music label stop requiring DRM on downloaded music, you can play any downloaded music on any device. And all DRM free music can easily be converted to any format that your MP3 player requires. But by this time, Apple iTunes Store was already beginning to dominate online music because of the popularity of the iPods.
Yes, Apple had all sorts of reasons to allow non-iTunes music on their players, including the fact that they didn't initially have a iTunes store and even when they did, barring other sources of music would have killed the iPod. Given these many reasons, them allowing other sources of music would have no barring on this case. Which was the point.
oxygenhose made some dumb assertion that the fact that Apple allows other sources of music would torpedo any DoJ case against them. It was as relevant as saying that the fact that Apple allows iPods to sync with Windows would torpedo the DoJ case.
Almost every company (especially tech companies) have that clause written into the contracts, whether they'd actually be able to enforce them is another matter altogether.
And how is an informal arrangement not to poach employees seen as "preventing valuable employees leaving". It will make the process a passive, rather than active hiring process, i.e. if somebody wants to go and work for Google from Apple, they still can. Google just weren't going to say to Apple employees "Do you want to come work for us for x, y and z benefits/bonuses".
Noncompete clauses are binding in most states as long as the time period and scope is reasonable. In a few states (like CA), though, they are really only binding for very high level employees who receive a significant amount of compensation - such as selling their company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp
I said this in another post. After WWII, we told Japan no more navy, etc and we would be their allies. In turn while we poorer billions into defense, they got busy making great cars and extremetech for the time. We also went from #3 in terms of global Internet speed just 10-15, maybe shorter years ago. We now stand at # 28. Shameful.
The really shameful thing is the way you're butchering the English language. Do yourself a favor and get an education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies. I don't expect MS to do it, Walmart to do it nor Apple to do it.
How is Apple interfering with anything? They simply said that if Amazon gets a song first that Apple will not highlight that song on iTMS. That's perfectly reasonable and legal.
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies. I don't expect MS to do it, Walmart to do it nor Apple to do it.
How does Apple refusing to spend money on marketing songs given exclusively to competitors for some time, songs for which there would be a relatively low return on marketing investment as a consequence, "interfere [emphasis mine] with the business and trade of other companies?" How does Apple telling record labels that they aren't going to waste their money on this, "interfere with the business and trade of other companies?"
How does Apple refusing to spend money on marketing songs given exclusively to competitors for some time, songs for which there would be a relatively low return on marketing investment as a consequence, "interfere [emphasis mine] with the business and trade of other companies?" How does Apple telling record labels that they aren't going to waste their money on this, "interfere with the business and trade of other companies?"
I was talking about the case of Amazon's offer to the labels to take part in their promotion, without the requirement of advanced, exclusive access. It would simply be agreeing to take part in an Amazon promotion. Apple still pressuring the labels not to take part.
As far as how does it interfere, well how does it not? In that same way that MS interfered with their OEMs trade and business with Netscape, using their marketing dollars. The OEMs stated that MS threatened to withhold marketing support if they agreed to place the Netscape shortcut on the desktop (amongst other threats) which amounted to promoting Netscape. This interfered with the OEMs ability to separately do business and trade with Netscape. Apple threatening to withhold marketing support from the labels if they agree to promote with Amazon doesn't seem so very different.
Apple can and should use their marketing assistance to influence their dealings with the labels. Should they use it to influence how the labels can deal with Amazon? When iTunes was first launching, would you have been accepting of Walmart threatening the labels to remove any marketing support from them if they agreed to terms with Apple that Walmart didn't like?
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.
I see the points. However, I wonder if there are advantages too - especially during the period of monopoly buildup.
I know...The DOJ is so messed up! I really want to see any consumer protection outcome from their past actions. I am sure there might be some indirect results, but even those that I can't seem to recall. Waste of taxpayers money!
Look no further than your cable modem. It could be a black rotary-dial handset instead.
How is Apple interfering with anything? They simply said that if Amazon gets a song first that Apple will not highlight that song on iTMS. That's perfectly reasonable and legal.
Shit, forget about the early access. As I have repeated, the original BillBoard story says that Amazon went to the labels and offered to drop that requirement (not across the board). But even for those offerings that would be promoted without Amazon getting early access to, Apple still pressured the labels not to deal.
Since Apple's problem was then obviously not limited to the concern about early exclusive access, then they seem to have been concerned simply with deals that would result in the labels co-promoting with Amazon (with or without early access). So what they simply said was that if you partner with Amazon for promotion, we will not partner with you on marketing. Maybe that is OK. When MS said to their OEMs that if they promoted Netscape (i.e. place shortcut on the desktop) they wouldn't partner with them on marketing, was only wrong because they were a monopoly? It might have been legal if they weren't, but right?
So, it is OK to you for Apple, or any other company with a strong market position to 'suggest' to other companies how they can trade and form contracts?
As for the use of Flash development system to create iPhone products: Apple believes these are crappy. That is why they disallow them. Why? Do they make a great deal of money from a competing system? I don't think so. You can buy a used Mac Mini for $400 with the SDK built in. Then it costs a whopping $99 to be join their developers group. I hardly see this as a huge revenue stream.
-
IMHO
That is beside the point. The point has nothing to do with Apple selling its dev tools.
apple is saying that if a dev wants to sell a title at the iStore, it may not be written in a manner which will allow it to be sold elsewhere. Instead, it must be written in a manner that gives Apple an exclusive title.
Perhaps the reason they are doing this is to use their app market power in order to disadvantage other platforms, and other handset makers.
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
Harassing public officials who are doing their job is not the best way to petition the government.
Comments
Of course what would torpedo the torpedoing of the investigation would be facts like:
-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.
Get your history straight.
iPods could play more than Fairplay AAC files because iPods debuted over a year before the iTMS even existed, not because they would have been dead in the water otherwise. [iPod introduced in Oct 2001. iTMS opened in April 2003]
And how is Apple trying to "suffocate" Amazon, by complaining when Amazon gets a competitive advantage? Especially when Amazon was allowed to sell non-DRM'd files before Apple was... as a way to get Apple to agree to variable pricing of songs sold on iTMS.
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
"the mobile app retail market"???
What the heck is that?
Are apps for Windows phone, Symbian, Android, Blackberry, and iPhone all considered to be in the same "mobile app retail market"?
If so, then I guess it is good news for Apple that Android is becoming so popular - because it makes it even less likely that Apple can be perceived as having a monopoly-position in that market.
The issue here isn't Apple. It really is everybody else. iTunes is successful because of the iPod and not the other way around. To the other hardware manufacturers, build things that people enjoy to use that are of high quality and easy to use. Apple isn't competing with you on price. They've begun to show with the iPod, iPhone & iPad that MS's true monopoly solely comes from Office and nothing else. Compatibility only goes so far because the PC (or whatever it's changing into now) is becoming a consumer market.
Apple may have other potential antitrust issues coming up but it doesn't have to anything to do with movies, Music, Flash and TV shows. The upcoming potential problem is the closed nature and the review process of the iPhone OS/App Store and if Apple limits the ability of mobile Safari in support of web-based applications due to App Store sales and iAds.
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.
But the main reason why Apple had to tie their iTunes Store songs to their iPod was because the Music labels required that a DRM be in place before they allowed their music to be sold online. Apple came up with "FairPlay". And made it work on their iPods. This satisfied the Music labels. Apple was not about to license their "FairPlay" DRM to other MP3 players because the Music label also required Apple to maintain the DRM if it got hacked. So Apple wasn't about to offer support for "FairPlay" on other MP3 players. Thus the music purchased from the iTunes can only be played on an iPod. Unless you removed the DRM. Which wasn't that hard to do using the iTunes software.
Microsoft on the other hand came out with "Play for Sure" and licensed it to any MP3 player that requires a DRM to play downloaded music. And to any online sites that wanted to sell music. "Play for Sure" was so problematic and unreliable that even Microsoft didn't want to use it on their Zune. Thus they came out with "Zune DRM" for their Zune. Which they did not license and only played music bought from their "Zune MarketPlace" music store.
But all of this is ancient history. In technology years. Once the Music label stop requiring DRM on downloaded music, you can play any downloaded music on any device. And all DRM free music can easily be converted to any format that your MP3 player requires. But by this time, Apple iTunes Store was already beginning to dominate online music because of the popularity of the iPods.
I meant more to prevent valuable employees leaving to work for your competitors, see the quote I was replying to.
Almost every company (especially tech companies) have that clause written into the contracts, whether they'd actually be able to enforce them is another matter altogether.
And how is an informal arrangement not to poach employees seen as "preventing valuable employees leaving". It will make the process a passive, rather than active hiring process, i.e. if somebody wants to go and work for Google from Apple, they still can. Google just weren't going to say to Apple employees "Do you want to come work for us for x, y and z benefits/bonuses".
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.
I said this in another post. After WWII, we told Japan no more navy, etc and we would be their allies. In turn while we poorer billions into defense, they got busy making great cars and extremetech for the time. We also went from #3 in terms of global Internet speed just 10-15, maybe shorter years ago. We now stand at # 28. Shameful.
Most of these countries you can watch tv anywhere not like the monopoly here is and sine is regulated. It should be a required utility. Not the way it is now.
Really? Lemme see: DOJ, anti-trust, using dominance to dictate terms... No, you're right, totally non-analogous.
This is just silly and rather glib. Microsoft was almost the only PC operating system at the time. They had something like 80% - 90% of the market. What percent of the smartphone market do you imagine the iPhone has? They aren't even the leading vendor. Monopolies, per se, are not illegal. But using a monopoly in one market to extend a monopoly to another market is illegal and Microsoft's position was found to be officially a monopoly position. I hope the arguments presented in the DOJ are more rigorous than those presented here.
Because people want Apple's products they are able to use purchasing power to leverage deals. There's no difference to what the supermarkets do or the department stores or whatever. More money means more buying power more buying power means better deals.
Manufacturers generally don't mind being pushed to the limits by Apple because they know Apple can sell their products which can only be good in the long term for them. Sure they whinge about the pressures to manufacture but it means good business for them.
No one wants a Zune or an XBox 360 and as a result Microsoft doesn't have as much buying power as Apple and manufacturers don't really want to do deals with a company that they know can't sell their products. As a result the Zune sells for more or roughly the same as an iPod but people would then look at the two and side with the iPod because they trust the brand.
The music industry is whinging because Apple has buying power over them and therefore able to push them around. This is not bad for the customer because it means that they get a better deal on their music. Meanwhile while they are whinging the music industry is raping the artists. Why isn't DOJ having a go at the music industry?
Apple's iTunes wasn't allowed to sell DRM free music or at least had to push damn hard to get it meanwhile Amazon waltzes in and steals Apple's thunder. Apple cried foul and threatened the music industry and now they have DRM free music across the board. Apple isn't a monopoly here because that music can be played on other players that support the format. They just can't use iTunes to get the music on those players. Why should Apple support players they don't make with their software? They're not entitled to do so so why bother? Meanwhile the customer wins again, Apple wins, the music industry continues to rape the artists.
DVDs have DRM and the movie industry enforces DRM on all their videos. Because only Apple supports the FairPlay DRM then only Apple devices can access those videos. This isn't a monopoly situation either because Apple is FORCED into applying DRM and they are using their DRM. No one wants to license the DRM anyway so why should Apple support players that don't want to pay their way?
The App Store is a bone of contention for many players but if developers don't like Apple's way of controlling their OWN product then there's nothing stopping those developers from playing on a different field. You don't whinge at the cricket field because you want to play rugby so why whinge at the App Store because you want to play Android's rules?
When you break it all down Apple hasn't done anything wrong. They've played a better game that's all. They try to play fair and by the rules but the losing teams always want to fight the win despite the fact they played a crap game.
So Apple is just supposed to sit back and watch music companies give a competitor a competitive advantage in sales of those songs, all while promoting those same songs on iTMS?
Apple isn't trying to crush a competitor - like Microsoft tried to crush Netscape - Apple is just balking at a competitor being given unique advantages in the market.
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies. I don't expect MS to do it, Walmart to do it nor Apple to do it.
Get your history straight.
iPods could play more than Fairplay AAC files because iPods debuted over a year before the iTMS even existed, not because they would have been dead in the water otherwise. [iPod introduced in Oct 2001. iTMS opened in April 2003]
And how is Apple trying to "suffocate" Amazon, by complaining when Amazon gets a competitive advantage? Especially when Amazon was allowed to sell non-DRM'd files before Apple was... as a way to get Apple to agree to variable pricing of songs sold on iTMS.
6 posts in and already a 'well duh' post.
I never said Apple should, could or would have ever considered not allowing MP3 or music from other sources. I actually said that to have done so would have been suicide from their players, so of course they wouldn't have. The 'history' is sort of irrelevant to the point. Yes, it shows why they initially 'allowed' MP3s. And I explained why they would continue to 'allow' MP3s.
Someone posted a post suggesting that because Apple 'allows' music from other sources, it would kill the DoJ case, with the implication that this shows Apple control nothing. But, as your own posts shows, the reasons for Apple 'allowing' us to play our own music was far more pragmatic to the success of the iPod than showing some sort of altruistic favour to the music companies and consumers.
Apple negotiates their own competitive advantages as well. Their competitors shouldn't decide Apple's terms of trade or business through their partners either.
But the main reason why Apple had to tie their iTunes Store songs to their iPod was because the Music labels required that a DRM be in place before they allowed their music to be sold online. Apple came up with "FairPlay". And made it work on their iPods. This satisfied the Music labels. Apple was not about to license their "FairPlay" DRM to other MP3 players because the Music label also required Apple to maintain the DRM if it got hacked. So Apple wasn't about to offer support for "FairPlay" on other MP3 players. Thus the music purchased from the iTunes can only be played on an iPod. Unless you removed the DRM. Which wasn't that hard to do using the iTunes software.
Microsoft on the other hand came out with "Play for Sure" and licensed it to any MP3 player that requires a DRM to play downloaded music. And to any online sites that wanted to sell music. "Play for Sure" was so problematic and unreliable that even Microsoft didn't want to use it on their Zune. Thus they came out with "Zune DRM" for their Zune. Which they did not license and only played music bought from their "Zune MarketPlace" music store.
But all of this is ancient history. In technology years. Once the Music label stop requiring DRM on downloaded music, you can play any downloaded music on any device. And all DRM free music can easily be converted to any format that your MP3 player requires. But by this time, Apple iTunes Store was already beginning to dominate online music because of the popularity of the iPods.
Yes, Apple had all sorts of reasons to allow non-iTunes music on their players, including the fact that they didn't initially have a iTunes store and even when they did, barring other sources of music would have killed the iPod. Given these many reasons, them allowing other sources of music would have no barring on this case. Which was the point.
oxygenhose made some dumb assertion that the fact that Apple allows other sources of music would torpedo any DoJ case against them. It was as relevant as saying that the fact that Apple allows iPods to sync with Windows would torpedo the DoJ case.
Almost every company (especially tech companies) have that clause written into the contracts, whether they'd actually be able to enforce them is another matter altogether.
And how is an informal arrangement not to poach employees seen as "preventing valuable employees leaving". It will make the process a passive, rather than active hiring process, i.e. if somebody wants to go and work for Google from Apple, they still can. Google just weren't going to say to Apple employees "Do you want to come work for us for x, y and z benefits/bonuses".
Noncompete clauses are binding in most states as long as the time period and scope is reasonable. In a few states (like CA), though, they are really only binding for very high level employees who receive a significant amount of compensation - such as selling their company.
I said this in another post. After WWII, we told Japan no more navy, etc and we would be their allies. In turn while we poorer billions into defense, they got busy making great cars and extremetech for the time. We also went from #3 in terms of global Internet speed just 10-15, maybe shorter years ago. We now stand at # 28. Shameful.
The really shameful thing is the way you're butchering the English language. Do yourself a favor and get an education.
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies. I don't expect MS to do it, Walmart to do it nor Apple to do it.
How is Apple interfering with anything? They simply said that if Amazon gets a song first that Apple will not highlight that song on iTMS. That's perfectly reasonable and legal.
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies. I don't expect MS to do it, Walmart to do it nor Apple to do it.
How does Apple refusing to spend money on marketing songs given exclusively to competitors for some time, songs for which there would be a relatively low return on marketing investment as a consequence, "interfere [emphasis mine] with the business and trade of other companies?" How does Apple telling record labels that they aren't going to waste their money on this, "interfere with the business and trade of other companies?"
How does Apple refusing to spend money on marketing songs given exclusively to competitors for some time, songs for which there would be a relatively low return on marketing investment as a consequence, "interfere [emphasis mine] with the business and trade of other companies?" How does Apple telling record labels that they aren't going to waste their money on this, "interfere with the business and trade of other companies?"
I was talking about the case of Amazon's offer to the labels to take part in their promotion, without the requirement of advanced, exclusive access. It would simply be agreeing to take part in an Amazon promotion. Apple still pressuring the labels not to take part.
As far as how does it interfere, well how does it not? In that same way that MS interfered with their OEMs trade and business with Netscape, using their marketing dollars. The OEMs stated that MS threatened to withhold marketing support if they agreed to place the Netscape shortcut on the desktop (amongst other threats) which amounted to promoting Netscape. This interfered with the OEMs ability to separately do business and trade with Netscape. Apple threatening to withhold marketing support from the labels if they agree to promote with Amazon doesn't seem so very different.
Apple can and should use their marketing assistance to influence their dealings with the labels. Should they use it to influence how the labels can deal with Amazon? When iTunes was first launching, would you have been accepting of Walmart threatening the labels to remove any marketing support from them if they agreed to terms with Apple that Walmart didn't like?
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.
I see the points. However, I wonder if there are advantages too - especially during the period of monopoly buildup.
I know...The DOJ is so messed up! I really want to see any consumer protection outcome from their past actions. I am sure there might be some indirect results, but even those that I can't seem to recall. Waste of taxpayers money!
Look no further than your cable modem. It could be a black rotary-dial handset instead.
How is Apple interfering with anything? They simply said that if Amazon gets a song first that Apple will not highlight that song on iTMS. That's perfectly reasonable and legal.
Shit, forget about the early access. As I have repeated, the original BillBoard story says that Amazon went to the labels and offered to drop that requirement (not across the board). But even for those offerings that would be promoted without Amazon getting early access to, Apple still pressured the labels not to deal.
Since Apple's problem was then obviously not limited to the concern about early exclusive access, then they seem to have been concerned simply with deals that would result in the labels co-promoting with Amazon (with or without early access). So what they simply said was that if you partner with Amazon for promotion, we will not partner with you on marketing. Maybe that is OK. When MS said to their OEMs that if they promoted Netscape (i.e. place shortcut on the desktop) they wouldn't partner with them on marketing, was only wrong because they were a monopoly? It might have been legal if they weren't, but right?
So, it is OK to you for Apple, or any other company with a strong market position to 'suggest' to other companies how they can trade and form contracts?
As for the use of Flash development system to create iPhone products: Apple believes these are crappy. That is why they disallow them. Why? Do they make a great deal of money from a competing system? I don't think so. You can buy a used Mac Mini for $400 with the SDK built in. Then it costs a whopping $99 to be join their developers group. I hardly see this as a huge revenue stream.
-
IMHO
That is beside the point. The point has nothing to do with Apple selling its dev tools.
apple is saying that if a dev wants to sell a title at the iStore, it may not be written in a manner which will allow it to be sold elsewhere. Instead, it must be written in a manner that gives Apple an exclusive title.
Perhaps the reason they are doing this is to use their app market power in order to disadvantage other platforms, and other handset makers.
I think that is what is being looked into.
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
Harassing public officials who are doing their job is not the best way to petition the government.
I expect Apple to compete. I don't expect them to interfere with the business and trade of other companies.
Then your definition of "interfere with the business and trade of other companies" is different than mine.
Apple doesn't appear to be telling them they can't make deals with competing music stores.
Apple doesn't appear to be threatening to retaliate by stopping the sale of the songs in question - like Amazon did to books published by MacMillan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/te.../30amazon.html