Wait, let me get this right. So Google has almost unassaliable lead in search (virtually a monopoly) and on its handset operating system.
Amazon has an almost unassaliable lead in e commerce and books etc.... but this is all fine with the Feds.
Apple who doesn't have a virtual monopoly in streaming music, or ebooks or search.... EVIL! MUST CRUSH!!
?It is so blatantly corrupt and wrong and.... just unfair... it makes my head hurt.
Why doesn't Apple uproot from the States and move to a decent country? No one in the press or in Washington cares that Apple are a great American company doing awesome things around the world. Time to go somewhere they are appreciated.
Stuart Smalley and the watchdog group has it all wrong... iPhone doesn't have a monopoly and spotify chose to sell at a higher rate. It's an opt in to Apple Music. Exclusives aren't illegal.
I read the letter rather quickly. His complaints center on one thing, which is specifically that apps may not mention anything outside the app store. I'm not going to verify the exact terms of that, but if you care to read the letter, everything centers around that.
I read the letter rather quickly. His complaints center on one thing, which is specifically that apps may not mention anything outside the app store. I'm not going to verify the exact terms of that, but if you care to read the letter, everything centers around that.
Well, that's not an unreasonable concern, from my perspective. Obviously, we'll see if the rest of the world agrees...
Everyone that refers to what we have now as "capitalism" should remember this moment, where some party, who may or may not be Spotify, is attempting to use initiation of force by proxy to block competition and consensual trade in the market, the very antithesis of capitalism. The moment force, coercion, or fraud enter into, it is, by definition, not capitalism because it is no longer the market.
Unfortunately these investigations are not bogus, they are quite real. The government apparently has targeted Apple for some reason on everything it does. That’s actually quite scary when you think of it. Amazon and Google are getting a pass while Apple has this huge target on its back.
It's all about the money. If Apple didn't have that cash hoard overseas, they would not be under the government microscope. Since when does the federal government care about music streaming? If all the issues that need their attention, they waste time on a music subscription service from a company that has no monopoly on any service they provide?
I stand by what I say. I do need a brain because I question why to waste time here.
Unfair advantage.
Monopoly - Only one place to get apps. Sure, customers can get a web-app, but that's not the same thing. Even if it was the same thing, most average people would not know about the web app.
What could happen is what happened to the phone companies - they had to allow competitors to sell DSL and phone services on the phone companies copper because they had a monopoly. And they had to fairly charge. This was a government step to create competition. Apple's day will come as they remain big and unfair.
A lot of people here don't think in terms of what is good for the market. Okay, fine, put Spotify out of business and everyone else. Then Apple can collude (or on their own) jack up prices on streaming services. Why shouldn't they if they are the only game in town. In fact, I hope they do so, so people can cry fowl.
Look at ATT and Verizon and their duopoly (yes, there are others, but this is the big boys oligopoly) - they keep jacking prices up.
There you go. Yes, I have no brain for wasting my time here.
You don't need to get so defensive just because of legitimate criticism to what you post. If you are that sensitive, perhaps you should take a break until you can handle the Internet.
The legitimate criticism is that you are not understanding what a monopoly means, nor what can be illegal activities by a monopoly. You are levelling criticism at Apple that is in fact just part of business, as is practiced by thousands of companies around the globe every day.
So, to the rebuttal:
- Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile phones. It has less than 50% of smart phones, and thus certainly less than 50% of all phones, in the US. Its global share is under 20%. A monopoly requires a "sizeable" majority - thinking greater than 70%. Users have a significant choice of handset vendors, and Android is the largest OS & Google services has most reach.
- Apple does not have a monopoly in music streaming. Likely their share is very tiny at the moment.
- Apple does not force any apps/services to be purchased through the App Store. Users can subscribe to those services outside of App Store, download the app, and then sign-up. Apple receives no money. Therefore, Apple does not have a monopoly on service revenue or access, even within their own platform.
- Apple allows competing services on their platform. All Google services, Amazon, B&N, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Millions of apps, in fact.
- A huge number of companies around the globe both provide a platform for selling products, and also sell their own branded products (every grocery store chain, Amazon, Microsoft, etc). This is not illegal.
- Many companies get exclusives. As noted above, how many places do you go to that offer both Pepsi and Coke products?
Your argument is that Apple is big, you don't care for their policies, and it is possible that some time in the future Apple might raise rates on some things. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't get mad when others poke holes in it.
It's all about the money. If Apple didn't have that cash hoard overseas, they would not be under the government microscope. Since when does the federal government care about music streaming? If all the issues that need their attention, they waste time on a music subscription service from a company that has no monopoly on any service they provide?
It isn't just the cash overseas (though that might be the biggest target of gov't). Apple is also quite vocal about defending privacy, which has drawn the ire of the US gov't agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA) that want to have those backdoors, and get access to information without warrants. No doubt the lack of money in lobbying is also part of it, where many will be thinking "if Apple want to avoid issues, then they should be paying to get that opinion to me".
Put it altogether, and Apple is (and will continue to be) the #1 target company of the US gov't. Far easy to focus there, than on real white collar crime, national security issues like arms sales to risky countries.
This isn't the first time Al has jumped on the 'let's all attack Apple' band wagon is it? This is an apolitical comment I stress, but I suspect it's either he's an old PC user who hates Apple or it's for the guaranteed media attention he never gets otherwise.
Apple ought to have a monopoly on the AppStore - the created it! There is nothing stopping other companies or even organisations from creating and App or Music Store. Nothing at all. Apple is merely the first to focus their efforts on ease of use for customers. Apple holds no monopoly on any industry or in any business except its own - which is exactly how it should be, right?
How about a test to see if you're even qualified to vote!!! A person needs at least half a brain that way these clowns like Al Franken and even Obama would never get elected.
How about a test to see if you're even qualified to vote!!! A person needs at least half a brain that way these clowns like Al Franken and even Obama would never get elected.
I think what you meant to say is if a person had half of your brain these clowns would never get elected.
There may be some legit reasons to monitor Apple's approach to this business, but none of the reasons listed are legitimate. In fact, they're all absurd and sound like an Onion article. I'm really surprised that Franken is on board for this because he's a pretty smart guy.
As far as Apple already having credit card info for the masses, so what? So does Amazon and many other e-commerce vendors. They're really going after Apple because Apple can make it slightly more convenient to offer the service? As far as Apple already having information on what tracks you purchased in order to facilitate custom radio stations or whatever, I also say, "so what?" That's no different than Macy's or any other retailer having information on what you ordered from them in order to market to you.
There are certainly plenty of ways the competition can compete effectively. They can provide a better user-interface. The latest iteration of Music seems really awful - you can't get a simple list of songs anymore and it seems like the only way you can shuffle all songs is to have Siri do it. There also used to be a feature where if you were in Shuffle mode and playing a track from an album, you could click an icon which would reveal all the tracks from that album, which you could then choose. Now it shows a list of all the upcoming songs in shuffle mode. And while fewer people are uploading CDs to iTunes, I've noticed that you no longer get an indicator showing how long the upload will take (and it seems to be gone for iOS updates as well).
The competition can also use more intelligence in their custom automated song selection. Sometimes, knowing less about the user is a benefit. You don't necessarily want to create a custom radio station with what the user has purchased - you want to surprise them with music they didn't know they liked. Or they can offer higher-bit rate audio quality.
As far as going around the record company and directly to an artist, I can assure you that most artists contracts forbid that. And if they don't forbid it, then Apple certainly has the right to try to strike such a deal. I'd only be concerned if Apple signed thousands of exclusive deals.
If there's a problem in this industry, it's not that there's too few players and they monopolize the market and raise prices to consumers, it's that there's too many players causing no one to yet be profitable. The only rationale for anti-trust "clamor" is if you believe that a player was currently offering music at no or little cost in order to monopolize the market so they could substantially raise prices later (like Amazon and eBooks). But unless both Spotify and Pandora were forced out of business, I don't see that happening.
[@]junior99[/@] has no problems with the Xbox Live monopoly in which Microsoft curates and approves all content allowed on Xbox, because of he's used to his cognitive dissonance biased against Apple.
Comments
Wait, let me get this right. So Google has almost unassaliable lead in search (virtually a monopoly) and on its handset operating system.
Amazon has an almost unassaliable lead in e commerce and books etc.... but this is all fine with the Feds.
Apple who doesn't have a virtual monopoly in streaming music, or ebooks or search.... EVIL! MUST CRUSH!!
?It is so blatantly corrupt and wrong and.... just unfair... it makes my head hurt.
Why doesn't Apple uproot from the States and move to a decent country? No one in the press or in Washington cares that Apple are a great American company doing awesome things around the world. Time to go somewhere they are appreciated.
Stuart Smalley and the watchdog group has it all wrong... iPhone doesn't have a monopoly and spotify chose to sell at a higher rate. It's an opt in to Apple Music. Exclusives aren't illegal.
I read the letter rather quickly. His complaints center on one thing, which is specifically that apps may not mention anything outside the app store. I'm not going to verify the exact terms of that, but if you care to read the letter, everything centers around that.
I read the letter rather quickly. His complaints center on one thing, which is specifically that apps may not mention anything outside the app store. I'm not going to verify the exact terms of that, but if you care to read the letter, everything centers around that.
Well, that's not an unreasonable concern, from my perspective. Obviously, we'll see if the rest of the world agrees...
Never to return either. One and done. No being out for a term and then running for re-election.
Everyone that refers to what we have now as "capitalism" should remember this moment, where some party, who may or may not be Spotify, is attempting to use initiation of force by proxy to block competition and consensual trade in the market, the very antithesis of capitalism. The moment force, coercion, or fraud enter into, it is, by definition, not capitalism because it is no longer the market.
It's all about the money. If Apple didn't have that cash hoard overseas, they would not be under the government microscope. Since when does the federal government care about music streaming? If all the issues that need their attention, they waste time on a music subscription service from a company that has no monopoly on any service they provide?
I stand by what I say. I do need a brain because I question why to waste time here.
Unfair advantage.
Monopoly - Only one place to get apps. Sure, customers can get a web-app, but that's not the same thing. Even if it was the same thing, most average people would not know about the web app.
What could happen is what happened to the phone companies - they had to allow competitors to sell DSL and phone services on the phone companies copper because they had a monopoly. And they had to fairly charge. This was a government step to create competition. Apple's day will come as they remain big and unfair.
A lot of people here don't think in terms of what is good for the market. Okay, fine, put Spotify out of business and everyone else. Then Apple can collude (or on their own) jack up prices on streaming services. Why shouldn't they if they are the only game in town. In fact, I hope they do so, so people can cry fowl.
Look at ATT and Verizon and their duopoly (yes, there are others, but this is the big boys oligopoly) - they keep jacking prices up.
There you go. Yes, I have no brain for wasting my time here.
You don't need to get so defensive just because of legitimate criticism to what you post. If you are that sensitive, perhaps you should take a break until you can handle the Internet.
The legitimate criticism is that you are not understanding what a monopoly means, nor what can be illegal activities by a monopoly. You are levelling criticism at Apple that is in fact just part of business, as is practiced by thousands of companies around the globe every day.
So, to the rebuttal:
- Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile phones. It has less than 50% of smart phones, and thus certainly less than 50% of all phones, in the US. Its global share is under 20%. A monopoly requires a "sizeable" majority - thinking greater than 70%. Users have a significant choice of handset vendors, and Android is the largest OS & Google services has most reach.
- Apple does not have a monopoly in music streaming. Likely their share is very tiny at the moment.
- Apple does not force any apps/services to be purchased through the App Store. Users can subscribe to those services outside of App Store, download the app, and then sign-up. Apple receives no money. Therefore, Apple does not have a monopoly on service revenue or access, even within their own platform.
- Apple allows competing services on their platform. All Google services, Amazon, B&N, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Millions of apps, in fact.
- A huge number of companies around the globe both provide a platform for selling products, and also sell their own branded products (every grocery store chain, Amazon, Microsoft, etc). This is not illegal.
- Many companies get exclusives. As noted above, how many places do you go to that offer both Pepsi and Coke products?
Your argument is that Apple is big, you don't care for their policies, and it is possible that some time in the future Apple might raise rates on some things. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't get mad when others poke holes in it.
It's all about the money. If Apple didn't have that cash hoard overseas, they would not be under the government microscope. Since when does the federal government care about music streaming? If all the issues that need their attention, they waste time on a music subscription service from a company that has no monopoly on any service they provide?
It isn't just the cash overseas (though that might be the biggest target of gov't). Apple is also quite vocal about defending privacy, which has drawn the ire of the US gov't agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA) that want to have those backdoors, and get access to information without warrants. No doubt the lack of money in lobbying is also part of it, where many will be thinking "if Apple want to avoid issues, then they should be paying to get that opinion to me".
Put it altogether, and Apple is (and will continue to be) the #1 target company of the US gov't. Far easy to focus there, than on real white collar crime, national security issues like arms sales to risky countries.
We have the best government money can buy.
Sadly we (the USA) never buy good governments in other countries.
Apple ought to have a monopoly on the AppStore - the created it! There is nothing stopping other companies or even organisations from creating and App or Music Store. Nothing at all. Apple is merely the first to focus their efforts on ease of use for customers. Apple holds no monopoly on any industry or in any business except its own - which is exactly how it should be, right?
Hahaha - money is so cheap!
This is why we need term limits for Senators
How about a test to see if you're even qualified to vote!!! A person needs at least half a brain that way these clowns like Al Franken and even Obama would never get elected.
How about a test to see if you're even qualified to vote!!! A person needs at least half a brain that way these clowns like Al Franken and even Obama would never get elected.
I think what you meant to say is if a person had half of your brain these clowns would never get elected.
"Steaming product"...that says it all.
There may be some legit reasons to monitor Apple's approach to this business, but none of the reasons listed are legitimate. In fact, they're all absurd and sound like an Onion article. I'm really surprised that Franken is on board for this because he's a pretty smart guy.
As far as Apple already having credit card info for the masses, so what? So does Amazon and many other e-commerce vendors. They're really going after Apple because Apple can make it slightly more convenient to offer the service? As far as Apple already having information on what tracks you purchased in order to facilitate custom radio stations or whatever, I also say, "so what?" That's no different than Macy's or any other retailer having information on what you ordered from them in order to market to you.
There are certainly plenty of ways the competition can compete effectively. They can provide a better user-interface. The latest iteration of Music seems really awful - you can't get a simple list of songs anymore and it seems like the only way you can shuffle all songs is to have Siri do it. There also used to be a feature where if you were in Shuffle mode and playing a track from an album, you could click an icon which would reveal all the tracks from that album, which you could then choose. Now it shows a list of all the upcoming songs in shuffle mode. And while fewer people are uploading CDs to iTunes, I've noticed that you no longer get an indicator showing how long the upload will take (and it seems to be gone for iOS updates as well).
The competition can also use more intelligence in their custom automated song selection. Sometimes, knowing less about the user is a benefit. You don't necessarily want to create a custom radio station with what the user has purchased - you want to surprise them with music they didn't know they liked. Or they can offer higher-bit rate audio quality.
As far as going around the record company and directly to an artist, I can assure you that most artists contracts forbid that. And if they don't forbid it, then Apple certainly has the right to try to strike such a deal. I'd only be concerned if Apple signed thousands of exclusive deals.
If there's a problem in this industry, it's not that there's too few players and they monopolize the market and raise prices to consumers, it's that there's too many players causing no one to yet be profitable. The only rationale for anti-trust "clamor" is if you believe that a player was currently offering music at no or little cost in order to monopolize the market so they could substantially raise prices later (like Amazon and eBooks). But unless both Spotify and Pandora were forced out of business, I don't see that happening.
I think this will go nowhere.