Amazon has prevented many book publishers and magazine publishers from publishing full content on Apple's iBook Store so why is Amazon not being investigated?
Apple has a monopoly on their OWN devices not on other people's devices. If you want to sell a movie in Walmart don't you have to adhere to their OWN terms? How is it any different with Apple accepting only applications that meet their terms?
If you've got nothing to hide you will let the DoJ do their jobs and move forward. I suspect Apple will come out on top with a precedence for any future claims.
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.
So how does that explain the 70% market share "shit cheap" Windows-based computers vs. the 10% "expensive niche" Apple computers, or:
Tons of cheap cars vs. a few very expensive luxury sports cars.
Don't oversimplify the situation, there is an awful lot more to everything than that, such as perceived value, "status symbol" etc.
I can sort of see where Smith is coming from, you only have to look at patented medication to see it at work, but it is by no means as cut and dried as you are implying.
Funny. I've never heard someone admit to irrationality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
Funny how you think Stumptown is a mecca for government checks, when it is Detroit that is the poster child for free market capitalism. How did that work out? I just happen to acknowledge that capitalism is a great system of economics that needs to be regulated. I also believe that the business community needs someone outside of business to help set and enforce the rules ... do you disagree with that?
No I don't disagree. I agree that Detroit is a mess. I agree that free market capitalism without (sensible) regulation is unthinkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
I appreciate that you can put people in little boxes..... Do you think the same for people of certain races and genders?
You started with the "putting people in little boxes" (go back and look at your post #52). If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
I'm sure you don't worry about little things like logic and fairness, but unemployment rates don't necessarily reflect sound economic policies ... China and North Korea have a great unemployment rates! Let us know when you are moving to one of those places.
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
Apple isn't trying to force the music industry to sell music on Apple's terms. Where do you get this malarky? Apple just wouldn't spend there time, efforts and money promoting music that Amazon was given a huge advantage in selling. Why on earth would anyone expect Apple to promote music under these circumstances, not only is it not sound business, it's down right ludicrous.
Now if Apple had said they'd pull the song and possibly the music labels music, then this would be comparable to what Microsoft has done in the past.
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.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with innovation and creativity ... mr. "one post" bschawla - that isn't the point.
This isn't about controlling innovation, it is about kickbacks and illegal business decisions.
I don't think Apple should have to worry.
I don't think the DoJ is on a witch hunt.
I don't blindly believe one newspaper article.
I think Ayn Rand was good at writing fiction.
I think arm chair capitalists haven't actually studied capitalism.
And the government actually DOES give money to small companies to encourage innovation - those are called tax credits and university grants and the GI Bill and federally backed student loans and dozens of other ways that you obviously have not studied.
The DoJ should be one of the few branches of the government that even rightwingers should support. If you don't like the current administration, then work to vote them out, but blustering about wasting tax dollars is the weak argument of a non-innovative reactionary.
Amazon has prevented many book publishers and magazine publishers from publishing full content on Apple's iBook Store so why is Amazon not being investigated?
Apple has a monopoly on their OWN devices not on other people's devices. If you want to sell a movie in Walmart don't you have to adhere to their OWN terms? How is it any different with Apple accepting only applications that meet their terms?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
Finally someone who actually has read Adam Smith.
And John Locke, who loved human endeavor as the highest form of liberty (Native Americans and the environment be damned) and thus paved the way for Adam Smith, he also said that freedom only happens when everyone has the chance to innovate and be free. Monopolies are bad for capitalism - they are the bread and butter of mercantilism.
The Founding Fathers and the Real Original Tea Party folks, like Samuel Adams, were attacking both the King of England (government) and the East India Company (corporate monopolies) at the same time. Maybe the Tea Party'ers today would like to learn some history, before they wave their "Don't Tread On Me" flags in ignorance.
The problem here though is that if monopolies stifle innovation then clearly Apple can't be a monopoly. They're the ONLY ones actually innovating. Microsoft doesn't innovate and they control the PC market. Apple doesn't control that market neither does it control the online music market. They just make a great store that got that way because of a great music player. Remember the store came AFTER the device and only came about because the music industry was threatening to make music Windows only with all the DRM they were going to apply to CDs. Apple is where it is because they took on a monopoly but they are not a monopoly at all, they are just simply in control of their destiny.
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?
You mean like is the case with consoles and a huge number of other consumer devices?...Oh hang on!
So far the response can be summarized as: Apple is no better than Microsoft, and it's not going to do any good. You may be right, but I am enough of an idealist to go ahead and register my opinion. Here is the text of the email I just sent to the DoJ via their website's contact us address.
It could be summarized that way, but incorrectly. Neither you nor I know whether Apple violated the law. That is for others to determine. The point I am making is that when Microsoft was investigated for antitrust law violations, the standard popular defense was, in effect, that Microsoft could not possibly have done anything wrong because antitrust law is inherently stupid, they are being punished for their success, that it must all be "politics" etc, etc, etc. The laws themselves, or the reasons they exist, never seemed to enter into this reasoning. I have a problem with that. A big one.
BTW, I am an AAPL investor of long standing. I am an AAPL stockholder who doesn't want to see his company violate laws. I didn't want to see Microsoft do it, and I don't want to see Apple do it either, even as a matter of self-interest, which as I explained above, is not well-served by pretending that some special exemption from the law exists just for your company. That was Microsoft's stance, and the stance of their defenders. That's just plain short-sighted, not to mention, delusional.
So I don't see your position as coming from a place of idealism. I don't even see it coming from a place of enlightened self interest. I see it coming from bias -- the company you like could not possibly have violated an actual law. IOW, just how the Microsoft thing went down.
You are fundamentally in error. A "monopoly" is not required for the antitrust laws to be brought into play. What is required is market power in a defined market.
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.
I don't know what this means, since it doesn't describe any events I know to have occurred.
No I don't disagree. I agree that Detroit is a mess. I agree that free market capitalism without (sensible) regulation is unthinkable.
That is the point. SENSIBLE. You happen to feel you can judge what is sensible and obviously you don't agree with the DoJ at this point. Fine, just realize that others define what is sensible in a different way
...
and my point is that those who actually study the law and follow the philosophical framework of capitalism and government intervention realize that all administrations begin these types of investigations for a variety of reasons. This is a long process, part of which involves determining what is "sensible."
You seemed to agreed with me earlier that it was good that Al Capone, Maddoff, et al. "went down." Well they didn't do so accidently. No one waited for market forces to go into affect to stop Capone. They were noticed, investigated and eventually charged (we'll see how BP fares) by the government. But somehow by post #5, you figured out that the Feds were over-reaching and said, "What a joke. Sometimes you have to wonder why US companies even bother becoming successful."
It is you who presume to understand "success" and that somehow conducting investigations makes the US a terrible place to be successful. I am just calling b.s. on that and pointing out that it is easy to throw out one-liners than to understand what is really going on.
Your other points don't really make sense, so no need to address them.
Because the tech world hasn't mentioned it or is it simply because if it's not Apple getting looked at then it's not news worthy?
Ah, they are not being reported. That is all we can really know for now. Just like with Nike, MS and other industry leads, we only hear about the news worthy ones. If WalMart and Amazon are not being investigated, then you would have a point.
The problem here though is that if monopolies stifle innovation then clearly Apple can't be a monopoly. They're the ONLY ones actually innovating. Microsoft doesn't innovate and they control the PC market. Apple doesn't control that market neither does it control the online music market. They just make a great store that got that way because of a great music player. Remember the store came AFTER the device and only came about because the music industry was threatening to make music Windows only with all the DRM they were going to apply to CDs. Apple is where it is because they took on a monopoly but they are not a monopoly at all, they are just simply in control of their destiny.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that except that monopolists can be very innovative themselves, but may illegally harm the freedom of the market as a whole to innovate. I believe MS obviously did that and I believe they did so with contracts and lawyers and not innovation. I believe Apple does innovate, is really the only current innovator, besides Google, and it has every right to create a device-centric walled garden if it wants to.
My point is that it is far to premature to say that an investigation constitutes stifling innovation. That is just being oversensitive. If the Feds throw the book at Apple (which I'm sure they won't) then I would agree with you. Just not there yet.
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.
Why should they? It doesn't matter if it's a week or a month or a year or 'only' a day. The labels are giving Amazon a head -start and Apple refuses to spend its own money promoting a song that they are the last one to get.
The insane part is people like you who think Apple should be forced to subsidize their competition by advertising the songs that the competition gets first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
There's no contradiction at all - only your continued lack of understanding of the law.
For example, manufacturing companies can offer marketing dollars to their retailers. It has long been determined that it's OK for the manufacturer to only offer the marketing dollars to companies which follow MSRP. There is nothing illegal about that. What Apple is doing is almost the same thing. They are refusing to use their marketing dollars to support songs which are given to the competition first.
I meant more to prevent valuable employees leaving to work for your competitors, see the quote I was replying to. There had been some fuss about Apple and Google having an agreement to not poach each others employees.
Comments
Apple has a monopoly on their OWN devices not on other people's devices. If you want to sell a movie in Walmart don't you have to adhere to their OWN terms? How is it any different with Apple accepting only applications that meet their terms?
The Law is an arse.
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.
So how does that explain the 70% market share "shit cheap" Windows-based computers vs. the 10% "expensive niche" Apple computers, or:
Tons of cheap cars vs. a few very expensive luxury sports cars.
Don't oversimplify the situation, there is an awful lot more to everything than that, such as perceived value, "status symbol" etc.
I can sort of see where Smith is coming from, you only have to look at patented medication to see it at work, but it is by no means as cut and dried as you are implying.
You mean the view of being rational?
Funny. I've never heard someone admit to irrationality.
Funny how you think Stumptown is a mecca for government checks, when it is Detroit that is the poster child for free market capitalism. How did that work out? I just happen to acknowledge that capitalism is a great system of economics that needs to be regulated. I also believe that the business community needs someone outside of business to help set and enforce the rules ... do you disagree with that?
No I don't disagree. I agree that Detroit is a mess. I agree that free market capitalism without (sensible) regulation is unthinkable.
I appreciate that you can put people in little boxes..... Do you think the same for people of certain races and genders?
You started with the "putting people in little boxes" (go back and look at your post #52). If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I'm sure you don't worry about little things like logic and fairness, but unemployment rates don't necessarily reflect sound economic policies ... China and North Korea have a great unemployment rates! Let us know when you are moving to one of those places.
That was very logical. Not.
The Law is an arse.
There's an old Italian saying: The law is for enemies; interpretation of the law is for friends.
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
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.
Apple isn't trying to force the music industry to sell music on Apple's terms. Where do you get this malarky? Apple just wouldn't spend there time, efforts and money promoting music that Amazon was given a huge advantage in selling. Why on earth would anyone expect Apple to promote music under these circumstances, not only is it not sound business, it's down right ludicrous.
Now if Apple had said they'd pull the song and possibly the music labels music, then this would be comparable to what Microsoft has done in the past.
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.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with innovation and creativity ... mr. "one post" bschawla - that isn't the point.
This isn't about controlling innovation, it is about kickbacks and illegal business decisions.
I don't think Apple should have to worry.
I don't think the DoJ is on a witch hunt.
I don't blindly believe one newspaper article.
I think Ayn Rand was good at writing fiction.
I think arm chair capitalists haven't actually studied capitalism.
And the government actually DOES give money to small companies to encourage innovation - those are called tax credits and university grants and the GI Bill and federally backed student loans and dozens of other ways that you obviously have not studied.
The DoJ should be one of the few branches of the government that even rightwingers should support. If you don't like the current administration, then work to vote them out, but blustering about wasting tax dollars is the weak argument of a non-innovative reactionary.
Amazon has prevented many book publishers and magazine publishers from publishing full content on Apple's iBook Store so why is Amazon not being investigated?
Apple has a monopoly on their OWN devices not on other people's devices. If you want to sell a movie in Walmart don't you have to adhere to their OWN terms? How is it any different with Apple accepting only applications that meet their terms?
The Law is an arse.
How do you know they are not being investigated?
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.
Finally someone who actually has read Adam Smith.
And John Locke, who loved human endeavor as the highest form of liberty (Native Americans and the environment be damned) and thus paved the way for Adam Smith, he also said that freedom only happens when everyone has the chance to innovate and be free. Monopolies are bad for capitalism - they are the bread and butter of mercantilism.
The Founding Fathers and the Real Original Tea Party folks, like Samuel Adams, were attacking both the King of England (government) and the East India Company (corporate monopolies) at the same time. Maybe the Tea Party'ers today would like to learn some history, before they wave their "Don't Tread On Me" flags in ignorance.
The problem here though is that if monopolies stifle innovation then clearly Apple can't be a monopoly. They're the ONLY ones actually innovating. Microsoft doesn't innovate and they control the PC market. Apple doesn't control that market neither does it control the online music market. They just make a great store that got that way because of a great music player. Remember the store came AFTER the device and only came about because the music industry was threatening to make music Windows only with all the DRM they were going to apply to CDs. Apple is where it is because they took on a monopoly but they are not a monopoly at all, they are just simply in control of their destiny.
How do you know they are not being investigated?
Because the tech world hasn't mentioned it or is it simply because if it's not Apple getting looked at then it's not news worthy?
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?
You mean like is the case with consoles and a huge number of other consumer devices?...Oh hang on!
So far the response can be summarized as: Apple is no better than Microsoft, and it's not going to do any good. You may be right, but I am enough of an idealist to go ahead and register my opinion. Here is the text of the email I just sent to the DoJ via their website's contact us address.
It could be summarized that way, but incorrectly. Neither you nor I know whether Apple violated the law. That is for others to determine. The point I am making is that when Microsoft was investigated for antitrust law violations, the standard popular defense was, in effect, that Microsoft could not possibly have done anything wrong because antitrust law is inherently stupid, they are being punished for their success, that it must all be "politics" etc, etc, etc. The laws themselves, or the reasons they exist, never seemed to enter into this reasoning. I have a problem with that. A big one.
BTW, I am an AAPL investor of long standing. I am an AAPL stockholder who doesn't want to see his company violate laws. I didn't want to see Microsoft do it, and I don't want to see Apple do it either, even as a matter of self-interest, which as I explained above, is not well-served by pretending that some special exemption from the law exists just for your company. That was Microsoft's stance, and the stance of their defenders. That's just plain short-sighted, not to mention, delusional.
So I don't see your position as coming from a place of idealism. I don't even see it coming from a place of enlightened self interest. I see it coming from bias -- the company you like could not possibly have violated an actual law. IOW, just how the Microsoft thing went down.
Wrong on all counts.
- 70% does not a monopoly make.
You are fundamentally in error. A "monopoly" is not required for the antitrust laws to be brought into play. What is required is market power in a defined market.
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.
I don't know what this means, since it doesn't describe any events I know to have occurred.
No I don't disagree. I agree that Detroit is a mess. I agree that free market capitalism without (sensible) regulation is unthinkable.
That is the point. SENSIBLE. You happen to feel you can judge what is sensible and obviously you don't agree with the DoJ at this point. Fine, just realize that others define what is sensible in a different way
...
and my point is that those who actually study the law and follow the philosophical framework of capitalism and government intervention realize that all administrations begin these types of investigations for a variety of reasons. This is a long process, part of which involves determining what is "sensible."
You seemed to agreed with me earlier that it was good that Al Capone, Maddoff, et al. "went down." Well they didn't do so accidently. No one waited for market forces to go into affect to stop Capone. They were noticed, investigated and eventually charged (we'll see how BP fares) by the government. But somehow by post #5, you figured out that the Feds were over-reaching and said, "What a joke. Sometimes you have to wonder why US companies even bother becoming successful."
It is you who presume to understand "success" and that somehow conducting investigations makes the US a terrible place to be successful. I am just calling b.s. on that and pointing out that it is easy to throw out one-liners than to understand what is really going on.
Your other points don't really make sense, so no need to address them.
Because the tech world hasn't mentioned it or is it simply because if it's not Apple getting looked at then it's not news worthy?
Ah, they are not being reported. That is all we can really know for now. Just like with Nike, MS and other industry leads, we only hear about the news worthy ones. If WalMart and Amazon are not being investigated, then you would have a point.
The problem here though is that if monopolies stifle innovation then clearly Apple can't be a monopoly. They're the ONLY ones actually innovating. Microsoft doesn't innovate and they control the PC market. Apple doesn't control that market neither does it control the online music market. They just make a great store that got that way because of a great music player. Remember the store came AFTER the device and only came about because the music industry was threatening to make music Windows only with all the DRM they were going to apply to CDs. Apple is where it is because they took on a monopoly but they are not a monopoly at all, they are just simply in control of their destiny.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that except that monopolists can be very innovative themselves, but may illegally harm the freedom of the market as a whole to innovate. I believe MS obviously did that and I believe they did so with contracts and lawyers and not innovation. I believe Apple does innovate, is really the only current innovator, besides Google, and it has every right to create a device-centric walled garden if it wants to.
My point is that it is far to premature to say that an investigation constitutes stifling innovation. That is just being oversensitive. If the Feds throw the book at Apple (which I'm sure they won't) then I would agree with you. Just not there yet.
Your other points don't really make sense, so no need to address them.
Somehow, I expected exactly that lazy response from you! Thanks for not disappointing.
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.
Why should they? It doesn't matter if it's a week or a month or a year or 'only' a day. The labels are giving Amazon a head -start and Apple refuses to spend its own money promoting a song that they are the last one to get.
The insane part is people like you who think Apple should be forced to subsidize their competition by advertising the songs that the competition gets first.
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.
There's no contradiction at all - only your continued lack of understanding of the law.
For example, manufacturing companies can offer marketing dollars to their retailers. It has long been determined that it's OK for the manufacturer to only offer the marketing dollars to companies which follow MSRP. There is nothing illegal about that. What Apple is doing is almost the same thing. They are refusing to use their marketing dollars to support songs which are given to the competition first.
Where on earth did you get that idea from?
I meant more to prevent valuable employees leaving to work for your competitors, see the quote I was replying to. There had been some fuss about Apple and Google having an agreement to not poach each others employees.