Apple, record labels under scrutiny for collusion in New York and Connecticut

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    What is the point of having Al Gore on the board if none of this is stopped?

    Al Gore has the political clout of Billy Carter at his best.
  • Reply 22 of 43
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member

    When Apple entered the book market, Amazon took the opportunity to switch to a pricing model which makes them more money, then made an "anonymous" complaint which led to the case against Apple, a case that hinged on average sale price pre and post Apple's introduction to the market, and not much else.

     

    Spotify do not make money, their free model is a loss-leader trying to obtain market share in the hopes that they'll convert to a paid subscription. This has not panned out for years and it's clear that Spotify will have to either drop or severely limit their free tier. 

    What is happening now is Spotify, in conjunction with The Verge, are seeding "anonymous" sources claiming that Apple are forcing the music industry to pressure Spotify into dropping their free tier. That's b/s, we already know Spotify are going to change their free-tier regardless and they're looking for a scapegoat.

     

    Spotify are hoping that they can force Apple out of the game in the same way Amazon was able to, while simultaneously dropping their free tier and forcing users to either upgrade, get out, or switch to a substantially lesser form of their free model. (Like Rad.io just did.)

     

    If Apple wanted to suck all of the air out of the market they have the funds to run Apple Music for free for several years, this would also drive down the music industries ability to sell, since no one would survive against Apple's coffers. That would be anticompetitive and it was one of the many tactics utilised by Microsoft (in this case how they destroyed Netscape.)

     

    In short the DOJ needs to start focusing on more than before and after prices to prove anticompetitive behaviour, because like Amazon, Spotify are already running at the minimum price.

  • Reply 23 of 43
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 982member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    You do have a point.

     

    But Apple might be hauled up for 'predatory pricing'...




    Of course they would.  Google and others can pretty much do what they want, but Apple would be raked over the coals if they are even rumored to do anything.  

  • Reply 24 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post



    As long as Apple has all that cash overseas, they will continue to be a target of the cash-strapped US state and federal governments.



    And how does the consumer benefit? This is all a bad witch hunt and sadly Apple constantly get the bad end of the deal. At this point, Apple has "Zero" customer base. Once again, The good guys are always a victim!

  • Reply 25 of 43
    copelandcopeland Posts: 298member

    Any ideas who could be the judge presiding over a possible trial? :no:

  • Reply 26 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

     

    Notice this doesn’t say that they have not entered into any deals with Apple, Sony or Warner...

    Supposed collusion.


    Are those two DA's seeking re-election by any chance?

    Who is contributing to their Campaigns?

     

    Please note that I'm not from the US and I won't be subscribing to Apple Music or any other Streaming service so I have nothing personal to gain either way. It just seems to me that the Law in the USA is a political pawn when it should be about justice.

  • Reply 27 of 43
    Excellent news. The very, very last thing that music needs is for it all to be gathered "in one place" under the control of some vast corporation that has no interest in music beyond generating revenue. That's the very opposite of what music is about.
  • Reply 28 of 43
    davidwdavidw Posts: 977member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ECats View Post

     

    When Apple entered the book market, Amazon took the opportunity to switch to a pricing model which makes them more money, then made an "anonymous" complaint which led to the case against Apple, a case that hinged on average sale price pre and post Apple's introduction to the market, and not much else.

     

    Spotify do not make money, their free model is a loss-leader trying to obtain market share in the hopes that they'll convert to a paid subscription. This has not panned out for years and it's clear that Spotify will have to either drop or severely limit their free tier. 

    What is happening now is Spotify, in conjunction with The Verge, are seeding "anonymous" sources claiming that Apple are forcing the music industry to pressure Spotify into dropping their free tier. That's b/s, we already know Spotify are going to change their free-tier regardless and they're looking for a scapegoat.

     

    Spotify are hoping that they can force Apple out of the game in the same way Amazon was able to, while simultaneously dropping their free tier and forcing users to either upgrade, get out, or switch to a substantially lesser form of their free model. (Like Rad.io just did.)

     

    If Apple wanted to suck all of the air out of the market they have the funds to run Apple Music for free for several years, this would also drive down the music industries ability to sell, since no one would survive against Apple's coffers. That would be anticompetitive and it was one of the many tactics utilised by Microsoft (in this case how they destroyed Netscape.)

     

    In short the DOJ needs to start focusing on more than before and after prices to prove anticompetitive behaviour, because like Amazon, Spotify are already running at the minimum price.


     

    Actually Amazon already had in place a model that made them less money. With the wholesale model they had with the publishers, Amazon paid the publishers a certain price for eBooks and then was able to set the price for the consumers. Amazon sold eBooks for barely a profit. (The price Amazon sold eBooks for was borderline predatory.) The consumers saw this as a benefit but Amazon was real motive was to put other eBook sellers out of business. Just like they did with hardcover books and the brick and mortar book stores. The publishers had no say in setting the price of eBooks to the consumers because they were already paid by Amazon.

     

    The agency model that Apple offered, and the publishers wanted, let the publishers set the price to the consumers but Apple got a 30% cut. (Which is no different than how Apple operate all their stores.) This was seen as having the effect of raising the price of eBooks for the consumers. eBooks that Amazon was selling artificially low for $9.99 would now cost what the publishers really wanted to sell eBooks for, about $12.99 to14.99.  This would help prevent eBook sales from cannibalizing their very profitable hardcover sales. Once the publishers had another vender in place that could compete with Amazon on their eBooks, they could force Amazon into the same agency model. 

     

    The publishers may have (and most likely did.) colluded when dealing with Amazon, but Apple made the offer to the publishers one at a time. It was the same offer they all agreed to and the same offer all venders in any of the Apple stores got.  But the courts dragged Apple into the collusion part (probably with the edging of Amazon. A major campaign contributor.)  and found that Apple was a willing participant in the publishers plan to raise eBook prices for the consumers from the very beginning.

     

    It was never about how much Amazon made selling eBooks, because they made very little money as it was. It was about how much more the consumers had to pay for eBooks once the publishers got Amazon to switch to an agency model.  In which case, Amazon would actually be making more money selling ebooks. And once the courts put the cuffs on Apple, Amazon went ahead and sign on with an agency model with the publishers. 

     

    And the courts will look at this the same way. If the consumers loses a service that was "free" and must resort to paying to get the same service because of the deals the publishers made with Apple,  Apple will be once again be dragged into a collusion case. Never mind that the "free" service was unsustainable and the music label, at any time before this, could withdraw their music from the free service, even without making a deal with Apple. But if they do it now, it will be seen by the courts as collusion with Apple to eliminate the "free" service. 

  • Reply 29 of 43
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    And yet tidal and spotify, etc. are overlooked completely.

    Meanwhile, the one who actually revolutionized digital music sales is being targeted for nothing.

    Sometimes these people just need a good smack upside the head to bring them back to earth.
  • Reply 30 of 43
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,199member

    Not surprising and something I feared as soon as the Apple Music announcement was made. As long as Apple continues to be a highly profitable company and as long as Apple's competitors continue to spend many billions more on lobbyists than Apple does, Apple will be mercilessly pursued as the single most valuable target for cash extraction by governments, both foreign and domestic. This pattern will repeat in every market that Apple enters that already has an established set of players who cow-tow to the status quo for government-industry financial symbiosis. 

  • Reply 31 of 43
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 324member

    New York and Connecticut...QQ wah wah wah!!!

  • Reply 32 of 43
    jensonbjensonb Posts: 529member

    Has it escaped their attention that if the major labels were colluding with Apple to weaken or coerce Spotify, they'd essentially be attempting to weaken or coerce...Themselves? They're Spotify shareholders

  • Reply 33 of 43
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    This is what happens when you don't grease the pockets of politicians!
  • Reply 34 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,512member
    More blood for that lamprey Bromwich.
  • Reply 35 of 43
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    lkrupp wrote: »

    Then they would be accused of predatory pricing to stifle competition. 

    Because only Amazon can get away with it.

    This is a govt sideshow. The only reason "free" services will go away is because of the services not making enough money.

    No collusion.
  • Reply 36 of 43
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,460member

    Lest we forget that evil collusion between Apple and ATT for exclusive rights to the iPhone for 3-4 years...  /s

  • Reply 37 of 43
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Because only Amazon can get away with it.



    This is a govt sideshow. The only reason "free" services will go away is because of the services not making enough money.



    No collusion.

     

    If anything it's these Radio Labels colluding together to keep prices high, and the $9.99 price point and no free service with Ad's!!!  Apple having zero choice in the matter.  Of course Am/FM Radio have been FREE forever and are still FREE and yet they play Music and get paid for by Ad's!!!  What's the difference from Over the Air to Internet streaming?  The end results are the same.

  • Reply 38 of 43
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

     

    If anything it's these Radio Labels colluding together to keep prices high, and the $9.99 price point and no free service with Ad's!!!  Apple having zero choice in the matter.  Of course Am/FM Radio have been FREE forever and are still FREE and yet they play Music and get paid for by Ad's!!!  What's the difference from Over the Air to Internet streaming?  The end results are the same.


     

    If you were to dig under the hood, it would be frightening...

     

    Listenership and figuring royalties for music

    Royalties for actors in ads and the number of potential listeners (yes, that is calculated and for streaming they might want per user royalty)

    Radio markets have a potential listenership.  Streaming is per user and labels demanded per listener royalties. (search subject from 2000 and before)

  • Reply 39 of 43
    kent909kent909 Posts: 711member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post



    I think Apple could solve this problem once and for all. Subsidize all ebooks for 99¢ Then offer Apple music for free for 5 years. With unlimited downloads and no adds and market thr hell out of both. Suck all the air out of the room then end the trial and charge what they want. Similar to Amazon just on music too.

    It would be cheaper just to buy off people.

  • Reply 40 of 43
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 838member
    Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, APPL.

    No Wall Street Firms, Bank executives, politicians, etc.

    Amazon never gets targeted for predatory pricing...
Sign In or Register to comment.