Stop making stupid, unwarranted attributions. I said no such thing. Companies price-to-market across the world for a whole host of reasons including different consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay, not just costs. And even if it is costs, a company has to prove it to regulators (who have a duty to follow up on consumer complaints), not just assert it. And, in the process of arguing a case like this, Apple will have to end up revealing a great deal about its pricing strategy, which it may not want to.
And, please point to a link where Apple says it is because of costs?
Getting personal are we?
As for a link, here are a few of the first search hits:
Apple denies that it has broken any laws, arguing that it would like to operate a single European site without any limits on content or access for all music fans.
But it says it is "hemmed in" by a series of commercial agreements with leading record companies which supply its content under certain copyright provisos.
Apple said the rights contracts it had negotiated came with "certain legal limits", essentially dictating what material can be sold in what countries.
"The underlying economic model in each country has an impact on how we price our track downloads," an Apple spokeswoman told BBC News ONline.
"That's not unusual - look at the price of CDs in the US versus the UK. We believe the real comparison to be made is with the price of other track downloads in the UK."
Apple is bound by the record labels' exclusive distribution contracts. These contracts mandate prices and the local governments dictate taxes.
The only way they could make every country's store identical would be to reduce the iTunes store's selection to the subset of tracks that are licensed everywhere, and to raise the price to equal the highest single-country price. And if they decided to sell tracks at a loss (although I can't imagine why they'd want to do that), they'd be sued for "dumping" product.
European lawmakers have created a no-win scenario for Apple. No matter what they do, they're going to be facing a never-ending barrage of lawsuits. I'm quite surprised they haven't decided to give up and just close the European stores. I certainly wouldn't want to do business in a place where I'm not welcome.
Yes. Because you should not casually accuse people of saying someone is "lying" when they did not. That is stupid ( in case you didn't notice, that was bolded, italicized, and underlined), and immature.
Especially when neither story you trotted out -- which happen to be BBC reports, rather than Apple's statements -- has an iota of reference to Apple claiming something about "different costs of doing business in different countries" that you said Apple claimed in response to this suit. Even the BBC reports talk about everything but what you said, if you read through it (including the snippets you seemingly desperately tried to conflate with your claim).
And, assuming Apple said that about US versus UK, that is irrelevant, since the US is not part of the EU.
I think you should: (i) go back and read what I said, and (ii) tell me where in a press release Apple claimed (backed up with some reasonable facts) that the cost of doing business in different countries in the EU were so radically different that they contributed to price differences they were compelled to charge that attracted the attention of competition authorities.
Comments
Stop making stupid, unwarranted attributions. I said no such thing. Companies price-to-market across the world for a whole host of reasons including different consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay, not just costs. And even if it is costs, a company has to prove it to regulators (who have a duty to follow up on consumer complaints), not just assert it. And, in the process of arguing a case like this, Apple will have to end up revealing a great deal about its pricing strategy, which it may not want to.
And, please point to a link where Apple says it is because of costs?
Getting personal are we?
As for a link, here are a few of the first search hits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6522429.stm
Apple denies that it has broken any laws, arguing that it would like to operate a single European site without any limits on content or access for all music fans.
But it says it is "hemmed in" by a series of commercial agreements with leading record companies which supply its content under certain copyright provisos.
Apple said the rights contracts it had negotiated came with "certain legal limits", essentially dictating what material can be sold in what countries.
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3658200.stm
... But Apple defended their UK pricing policy.
"The underlying economic model in each country has an impact on how we price our track downloads," an Apple spokeswoman told BBC News ONline.
"That's not unusual - look at the price of CDs in the US versus the UK. We believe the real comparison to be made is with the price of other track downloads in the UK."
Apple is bound by the record labels' exclusive distribution contracts. These contracts mandate prices and the local governments dictate taxes.
The only way they could make every country's store identical would be to reduce the iTunes store's selection to the subset of tracks that are licensed everywhere, and to raise the price to equal the highest single-country price. And if they decided to sell tracks at a loss (although I can't imagine why they'd want to do that), they'd be sued for "dumping" product.
European lawmakers have created a no-win scenario for Apple. No matter what they do, they're going to be facing a never-ending barrage of lawsuits. I'm quite surprised they haven't decided to give up and just close the European stores. I certainly wouldn't want to do business in a place where I'm not welcome.
Getting personal are we?
Yes. Because you should not casually accuse people of saying someone is "lying" when they did not. That is stupid ( in case you didn't notice, that was bolded, italicized, and underlined), and immature.
Especially when neither story you trotted out -- which happen to be BBC reports, rather than Apple's statements -- has an iota of reference to Apple claiming something about "different costs of doing business in different countries" that you said Apple claimed in response to this suit. Even the BBC reports talk about everything but what you said, if you read through it (including the snippets you seemingly desperately tried to conflate with your claim).
And, assuming Apple said that about US versus UK, that is irrelevant, since the US is not part of the EU.
I think you should: (i) go back and read what I said, and (ii) tell me where in a press release Apple claimed (backed up with some reasonable facts) that the cost of doing business in different countries in the EU were so radically different that they contributed to price differences they were compelled to charge that attracted the attention of competition authorities.
I'll assume you will not bother.