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.
Correct.
But the problem is that the DoJ sometimes comes up with situational definitions of 'market power,' often justified in opaque economics jargon. Courts have sometimes struck it down.
Somehow, I expected exactly that lazy response from you! Thanks for not disappointing.
Okay, I am really bored to be indulging you, but just in case you graduate from high school someday and actually become a productive member of society, I should make this really, really clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Funny. I've never heard someone admit to irrationality.
Ah, you still haven't. Your response is a non-sequitur to my comment. That means you misunderstood what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
No I don't disagree. I agree that Detroit is a mess. I agree that free market capitalism without (sensible) regulation is unthinkable.
We agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
Post #52 begins, "Hey, you lazy anti-government wannabees..." That was calling you a name, not putting you into a box - two different things. I may be incorrect in my assessment, but I am not attributing a broad characteristic to a particular group of people. I am just calling you a member of a self-defined group of people ... and calling that group lazy. By you labeling me based upon my city, you are displaying prejudice. By me labeling you based upon your earlier posts, I am merely judging you. Again, that doesn't mean I am any more correct than you or any more virtuous than you.
And yes, I believe I can take your withering sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That was very logical. Not.
This was your sophisticated response to my response of your claim that people from Stumptown were likely to have erroneous views about government regulations based upon the fact that we have a high unemployment rate. That was the box putting of the above quote. My response was that I believe that a city's unemployment rate was neither causal, nor correlated to a tendency for or against government intervention in the free market. Texas has a far higher unemployment rate than Hawai'i. Does that tell you which one is more business friendly?
BTW, we should all take the time to remember the federal government employees who gave their lives for the freedom we use to debate - the men and women of the military. Happy Memorial Day.
P.S. My first comment above was condescending and sarcastic and I am sorry ... but it isn't prejudice.
But the problem is that the DoJ sometimes comes up with situational definitions of 'market power,' often justified in opaque economics jargon. Courts have sometimes struck it down.
And that is the give and take between the executive and judicial branches of the government. If the executive branch doesn't try to act upon laws in the first place, there is no chance for the courts to make rulings.
Okay, I am really bored to be indulging you, but just in case you graduate from high school someday and actually become a productive member of society.
......... blather blather .........
P.S. My first comment above was condescending and sarcastic and I am sorry ...
The level of self-contradiction there just about says it all, no? (I assume you'll be rational, and disagree).
Let's move along. You're a complete waste of my time (and I likewise for you).
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.
Good response. I don't disagree on your main points, but as you said neither one of us knows whether Apple has broken any laws. Until we do, I want the DoJ to put public response into the equation. For good or ill, public opinion matters in matters of public policy and interpretation of the law. I cop to being biased. I really do admire and respect the way Apple does what it does. But from what I know about how they have revolutionized the music business it doesn't look like anything but better for everyone involved. At least as far as artists and audiences are concerned. I have less sympathy for the middlemen (labels, publishers, managers, pr men) and other leaches who have gotten in between art and audience--the only two parties who really matter. Damn, there goes that biased idealism again! ;-)
The level of self-contradiction there just about says it all, no? (I assume you'll be rational, and disagree).
Let's move along. You're a complete waste of my time (and I likewise for you).
Actually it isn't a waste of time. I was sarcastic and condescending, but you have not said one thing of substance about anything of substance. You highlight two sentences and dismiss the rest. You substitute emoticons for rational argument. It is you who are avoiding the issue and pretending to be reasonable.
Hopefully, even though I am sure this is annoying to everyone else, in some way this highlights the problem that we have as a nation to get beyond name calling and sound bites. I may name call, but I don't end the discussion there.
But the problem is that the DoJ sometimes comes up with situational definitions of 'market power,' often justified in opaque economics jargon. Courts have sometimes struck it down.
The definition is inherently situational, so there's no escaping the need for interpretation. Many times I think it comes down to an operational definition. If a company has behaved in markets in ways that no other can, then market power becomes essentially self-evident. If a company, for example, can insist on exclusive dealing, and get away with it, then by that evidence alone they have market power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Good response. I don't disagree on your main points, but as you said neither one of us knows whether Apple has broken any laws. Until we do, I want the DoJ to put public response into the equation. For good or ill, public opinion matters in matters of public policy and interpretation of the law. I cop to being biased. I really do admire and respect the way Apple does what it does. But from what I know about how they have revolutionized the music business it doesn't look like anything but better for everyone involved. At least as far as artists and audiences are concerned. I have less sympathy for the middlemen (labels, publishers, managers, pr men) and other leaches who have gotten in between art and audience--the only two parties who really matter. Damn, there goes that biased idealism again! ;-)
Well I have noticed that you are one of the fair minded people on these boards, so I am happy to know that you haven't suddenly become unhinged.
I'm not sure that public opinion matters so much in these cases. Justice Departments are more lax or more aggressive in enforcing antitrust law, depending on the administration, but I don't believe they are taking the public's temperature on any given case at any given moment. The Microsoft case wasn't exactly popular with the public (few actually understood it) but the DoJ knew they had a major transgression on their hands, and to their credit, they kept at it for the several years required to bring it to trial and appeal.
All of which I think points out the prematurity of coming to any hasty judgements about the current investigation. Assuming it leads anywhere at all, there are many points in the process where any concerns raised by the DoJ can be addressed short of a lawsuit.
The point being, when a company gets to a certain size, they have to be more careful about how they treat competitors. We may not be used to thinking about Apple that way (perennial underdog status hangover), but we should now.
Knowing the Feds are on the job is such a comfort. Only good can come from this...
I'm still waiting for someone to report this without quoting the New York Post. Doesn't the Times have some sources, what about the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal. they have no sources at the DoJ that can give them the scoop on this. that seems odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
And as for having an iPad monopoly, where are the iPad "killers" anyway? You mean to say that because nobody else has yet chosen to produce a competing product a monopoly exists?
I believe you mean a 'tablet monopoly' and yes the ipad does have one. however monopolies aren't inherently evil. it's all in how you get there. if it is by having the most popular of the market, then that's fine. So long as you don't then abuse the gift you've been given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banalltv
How about Adobe using it's virtual monopoly to twist people's arms into paying for useless updates every year and a half?
i wouldn't go so far as to call them useless, but yes it does seem like they are way overpriced. and yes perhaps they are using their natural monopoly in ways that are open attempts to block other innovations and perhaps that should be looked at
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
You seem to be playing fast and loose in order to make your argument.
Microsoft doesn't have dominance, it has a monopoly.
actually it has both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac
I wonder if Pystar is watching this and thinks it's time to test the water with more clones again.
only if they are morons. because this is apples to oranges (pardon the pun). no effect on that whole bit of nasty
Quote:
I say cut the crap Apple, put Flash on the iPad with a kill switch. <snipped>
That should make everyone happy, including Apple who will get even richer.
more like burden Apple with dealing with a substandard tech. There's no working Flash on any tablet or mobile device at this point. now when that changes, perhaps the argument would work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
I agree, except for nit pick on the last sentence. Apple isn't preventing Amazons deal of the day - Apple is only refusing to spend their hard work and money developing marketing and advertising for songs that Amazon wil capture hundreds of thousands of songs before Apple can even sell one of those songs.
minor correction. At the time that the advance sales existed (apparently Amazon recently dropped that as a requirement in the program) it was before ANYONE else could sell the item. Online or Brick and Mortar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
the trouble there is that mobile apps aren't flexible. you can no more use an iphone app on an android (and vice versa) than you can use a PSP game on an Xbox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple should have simply said "Adobe has never delivered a version of Flash which works on the iPhone" and left it at that.
and even now they could say "Adobe has not delivered a mobile version of Flash that meets our quality requirements to ensure no negative impact on our users"
Quote:
OK. So what's the problem? If as people are arguing, Apple's not offering Flash on the iPhone is a bad thing, it helps the competition.
indeed, much of the growth of HTML5 etc has been because Apple doesn't have Flash on the iphone etc.
Quote:
Nonsense. 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.
That's just it. Amazon was demanding better terms via an earlier release date than all other sellers. And it could be argued that they were using their strong position in online retail to get those terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx
Personally, I have trouble seeing a serious financial interest here. There are two parts to Flash issue - no Flash Player on iPhone OS, and not allowing Flash derivative programs on the platform.
there is a minor error in your last bit. One that a lot of folks make.
It isn't just Flash. It's anything that isn't the specific languages Apple has spelled out in the agreement. No Flash, No Java, etc. so it really is not an Apple v Adobe issue.
Quote:
Actually, Apple is loosing money in this so-called "Flash war." One of the biggest excuses for not wanting to buy an iPhone or iPad is that it will not play flash.
yeah you hear that a lot among the techno geeks. and yet 2 million ipads have sold in just under 2 months. and how many iphones and ipod touches are out there. several million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
Well Apple use no language at all which prevents an iPhone developer from also developing for other platforms.
they sure don't.
Quote:
All Apple is doing is preventing you from developing using any other methods for the iPhone OS (i.e. no Cydia etc.)
technically they don't actually block Cydia. they haven't tried to sue etc. And a lot of Cydia apps were made under the Devo program but were rejected by Apple. So in a technical sense they do often work just fine.
All Apple has done is to say that they don't approve of such apps and thus won't support them or any damage their use causes, etc. same as me hacking my DVD player etc voids my warranty.
OK folks. You there in the back stop trying to crawl up the wall. You two down in front stop beating each other with your Glenn Beck and Obamanator signs.
You all need to settle down. This is just more of the FUD storming that usually happens prior to any Apple (anticipated) new release or announcement. Set aside the fact that the Post is largely sensationalist, and that article replete with "insiders" and anonymous sources close to the issue. Of course the DOJ is going to investigate complaints - the labels have complained, the networks have complained, the publishers have complained, Nokia, Kodak, et al. Apple has built a very successful ecosystem, and it wouldn't be fair to let that go critically unexamined, especially for those content providers who are struggling with the digital age and their declining profitability.
Slow news days make for flaming sensationalist crap slung by the bye-writers for the rags and blogs - and who wants to do YET ANOTHER ARTICLE about veterans and those fighting for us in the military (which no one really wants to do in the liberal-side media anyway) on Memorial Day*.
Really folks - I know this is a popular place to vent off on these silly items but some of you really needed to get some sunshine and conversation before your posts. It's OK. Apple is a nice big corporation that can take care of itself.
*and for the record I deeply respect and appreciate the US men and women who gave selflessly in all conflicts, but especially those that were to ensure that the world remained a place where freedom could thrive, if allowed.
The definition is inherently situational, so there's no escaping the need for interpretation. Many times I think it comes down to an operational definition. If a company has behaved in markets in ways that no other can, then market power becomes essentially self-evident. If a company, for example, can insist on exclusive dealing, and get away with it, then by that evidence alone they have market power.
I don't disagree at all. That's very well-stated.
But the bolded section is the problem: courts often end up striking it down because they find some element of capriciousness inevitably -- at least, good lawyers are able to swing the argument to that effect (as they ultimately did with Microsoft in the US). It drags on for years. In the meantime, innovative and hard-charging companies start to self-censor their actions, and perhaps end up with errors of 'omission' (i.e., not pursue certain potentially value-creating paths since it might perceived as too risky from an antitrust standpoint) and leave value on the table.
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.
Ok, my bad. I forgot my rule not to expect you to actually read posts before replying. I didn't say they reduced the lead to a day. The restructuring Amazon proposed eliminated the advanced access for some songs (hence, it being 'just a sale'). The original Billboard article reported that Apple still pressured the labels not take part.
I don't think Apple should be forced to give anyone anything. But if they are offering up valuable resources to partners, I don't think the should then use it to force those labels not to deal with others nor is it for Apple to dictate the terms of trade between those labels and other stores. Whether it is Apple, MS or Walmart, I don't like it when dominant companies bully their partners (even in those partners are dirt sucking record labels).
People like you wouldn't understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Nice twisting to avoid the point. Obviously companies are allowed to use incentives to get terms that are to their liking when establishing the relationship between them and their partners. Using those incentives to undermine the relationships between those same partners and competitors isn't so above board. Legal? Probably. I am not a lawyer though, so I don't necessarily equate legal to right.
You mean they tried to use their monopoly in os to give away a browser in order to put Netscape out of business. Because that is exactly what you are saying.
That was once claim. The OEMs also claimed MS was using their advertising dollars to force the OEMs into accepting their decisions on how the OEMs could deal with Netscape. There were many claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
Why should Apple be FORCED to put extra advertising dollars into music they aren't first to get?
They shouldn't be. I don't think it is right that they use access this advertising space to influence trade between the labels and Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
No, a monopoly would have to have at least near 100% market share to be classed as a monopoly, otherwise it is just the biggest player.
Almost there. Percentage is important, but just as important or more so is influence within the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
Having the monopoly isn't illegal either, by the way. Abusing your market position (be it 60% or ~100%) to stifle innovation/competition is the illegal bit.
Umm...well, yeah. Who said otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
Apple only has about 70% of the DIGITAL ONLY downloads, and the music labels have already shown that to not be enough to "control things" as the labels still have ultimate control of the content and have been able to dictate that Apple introduce variable pricing, amongst other things.
This whole thing is a crock.
The labels did get that concession. Which was the result of Apple and the label negotiating. It is probably a good thing that when Apple was first negotiating these deals that Walmart didn't call each of the labels and threaten to consign their new releases to some dark corner if they dealt with Apple. Apple's ability to deal with the labels would have been unfairly influenced by Walmart, if that had happened. Would that have been OK?
But the bolded section is the problem: courts often end up striking it down because they find some element of capriciousness inevitably -- at least, good lawyers are able to swing the argument to that effect (as they ultimately did with Microsoft in the US). It drags on for years. In the meantime, innovative and hard-charging companies start to self-censor their actions, and perhaps end up with errors of 'omission' (i.e., not pursue certain potentially value-creating paths since it might perceived as too risky from an antitrust standpoint) and leave value on the table.
Microsoft didn't have a prayer on the market power issue. If they'd have one that point, they'd have won the antitrust suit. Not sure if that's what you meant, though.
Microsoft didn't have a prayer on the market power issue. If they'd have one that point, they'd have won the antitrust suit. Not sure if that's what you meant, though.
I was referring to the fact that DoJ ultimately had to settle. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and an appeals court struck down some of the key elements of a lower court's findings against Microsoft (and slapped the wrist of the lower court judge for bias). It's admittedly somewhat dim recollection on my part.
Now, I happen to think that Microsoft was the villain here, don't get me wrong. I was simply referring to the fact that courts strike down these things because of perceived capriciousness, and the fact that it is 'situational' case-making or arguments based on the supposedly 'self-evident' nature of 'market power' that perhaps leads to that conclusion.
It's late where I am and I need to turn in......(yawn).....
I hope the DoJ looks into Starbucks.. because when I was in there this past week they were only selling StarBucks coffee, there wasn't a Foldgers crystal to be found... what type of walled garden crap is going on in the coffee industry?
I hope the DoJ looks into Starbucks.. because when I was in there this past week they were only selling StarBucks coffee, there wasn't a Foldgers crystal to be found... what type of walled garden crap is going on in the coffee industry?
This is not very different than Apple using their position to 'encourage' the labels from not taking part in Amazon's promotions. The reports are that Apple uses it's dominance in online music sales to encourage labels not to take part in Amazon's promotions. The reported threat would be Apple would refuse to provide marketing support through iTunes for those songs that were offered in Amazon's promotions. Sound familiar? Play ball with us, do not do freely do business with a competitor or you will suffer consequences.
QUOTE]
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 was referring to the fact that DoJ ultimately had to settle. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and an appeals court struck down some of the key elements of a lower court's findings against Microsoft (and slapped the wrist of the lower court judge for bias). It's admittedly somewhat dim recollection on my part.
Now, I happen to think that Microsoft was the villain here, don't get me wrong. I was simply referring to the fact that courts strike down these things because of perceived capriciousness, and the fact that it is 'situational' case-making or arguments based on the supposedly 'self-evident' nature of 'market power' that perhaps leads to that conclusion.
It's late where I am and I need to turn in......(yawn).....
No, that's not what happened. The Findings of Fact were upheld on appeal (unanimous decision by the en banc Appeals Court), but the remedy written by Judge Jackson was thrown out and the case referred to another federal judge for the formulation of a new remedy. Jackson was removed because of some things he said to a journalist about the case which were supposed to be embargoed until after the case was done, but he released them prematurely. Then came the election of 2000. The new Bush DoJ snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory by recommending a weak Consent Decree, which the new judge in the case accepted. Pretty much the damage had already been done in the Findings of Fact, though. Microsoft tried to get them overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, which did not take the case.
Comments
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.
Correct.
But the problem is that the DoJ sometimes comes up with situational definitions of 'market power,' often justified in opaque economics jargon. Courts have sometimes struck it down.
Somehow, I expected exactly that lazy response from you! Thanks for not disappointing.
Okay, I am really bored to be indulging you, but just in case you graduate from high school someday and actually become a productive member of society, I should make this really, really clear.
Funny. I've never heard someone admit to irrationality.
Ah, you still haven't. Your response is a non-sequitur to my comment. That means you misunderstood what I said.
No I don't disagree. I agree that Detroit is a mess. I agree that free market capitalism without (sensible) regulation is unthinkable.
We agree.
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.
Post #52 begins, "Hey, you lazy anti-government wannabees..." That was calling you a name, not putting you into a box - two different things. I may be incorrect in my assessment, but I am not attributing a broad characteristic to a particular group of people. I am just calling you a member of a self-defined group of people ... and calling that group lazy. By you labeling me based upon my city, you are displaying prejudice. By me labeling you based upon your earlier posts, I am merely judging you. Again, that doesn't mean I am any more correct than you or any more virtuous than you.
And yes, I believe I can take your withering sarcasm.
That was very logical. Not.
This was your sophisticated response to my response of your claim that people from Stumptown were likely to have erroneous views about government regulations based upon the fact that we have a high unemployment rate. That was the box putting of the above quote. My response was that I believe that a city's unemployment rate was neither causal, nor correlated to a tendency for or against government intervention in the free market. Texas has a far higher unemployment rate than Hawai'i. Does that tell you which one is more business friendly?
BTW, we should all take the time to remember the federal government employees who gave their lives for the freedom we use to debate - the men and women of the military. Happy Memorial Day.
P.S. My first comment above was condescending and sarcastic and I am sorry ... but it isn't prejudice.
cheers
Correct.
But the problem is that the DoJ sometimes comes up with situational definitions of 'market power,' often justified in opaque economics jargon. Courts have sometimes struck it down.
And that is the give and take between the executive and judicial branches of the government. If the executive branch doesn't try to act upon laws in the first place, there is no chance for the courts to make rulings.
Okay, I am really bored to be indulging you, but just in case you graduate from high school someday and actually become a productive member of society.
......... blather blather .........
P.S. My first comment above was condescending and sarcastic and I am sorry ...
The level of self-contradiction there just about says it all, no? (I assume you'll be rational, and disagree).
Let's move along. You're a complete waste of my time (and I likewise for you).
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.
Good response. I don't disagree on your main points, but as you said neither one of us knows whether Apple has broken any laws. Until we do, I want the DoJ to put public response into the equation. For good or ill, public opinion matters in matters of public policy and interpretation of the law. I cop to being biased. I really do admire and respect the way Apple does what it does. But from what I know about how they have revolutionized the music business it doesn't look like anything but better for everyone involved. At least as far as artists and audiences are concerned. I have less sympathy for the middlemen (labels, publishers, managers, pr men) and other leaches who have gotten in between art and audience--the only two parties who really matter. Damn, there goes that biased idealism again! ;-)
The level of self-contradiction there just about says it all, no? (I assume you'll be rational, and disagree).
Let's move along. You're a complete waste of my time (and I likewise for you).
Actually it isn't a waste of time. I was sarcastic and condescending, but you have not said one thing of substance about anything of substance. You highlight two sentences and dismiss the rest. You substitute emoticons for rational argument. It is you who are avoiding the issue and pretending to be reasonable.
Hopefully, even though I am sure this is annoying to everyone else, in some way this highlights the problem that we have as a nation to get beyond name calling and sound bites. I may name call, but I don't end the discussion there.
Correct.
But the problem is that the DoJ sometimes comes up with situational definitions of 'market power,' often justified in opaque economics jargon. Courts have sometimes struck it down.
The definition is inherently situational, so there's no escaping the need for interpretation. Many times I think it comes down to an operational definition. If a company has behaved in markets in ways that no other can, then market power becomes essentially self-evident. If a company, for example, can insist on exclusive dealing, and get away with it, then by that evidence alone they have market power.
Good response. I don't disagree on your main points, but as you said neither one of us knows whether Apple has broken any laws. Until we do, I want the DoJ to put public response into the equation. For good or ill, public opinion matters in matters of public policy and interpretation of the law. I cop to being biased. I really do admire and respect the way Apple does what it does. But from what I know about how they have revolutionized the music business it doesn't look like anything but better for everyone involved. At least as far as artists and audiences are concerned. I have less sympathy for the middlemen (labels, publishers, managers, pr men) and other leaches who have gotten in between art and audience--the only two parties who really matter. Damn, there goes that biased idealism again! ;-)
Well I have noticed that you are one of the fair minded people on these boards, so I am happy to know that you haven't suddenly become unhinged.
I'm not sure that public opinion matters so much in these cases. Justice Departments are more lax or more aggressive in enforcing antitrust law, depending on the administration, but I don't believe they are taking the public's temperature on any given case at any given moment. The Microsoft case wasn't exactly popular with the public (few actually understood it) but the DoJ knew they had a major transgression on their hands, and to their credit, they kept at it for the several years required to bring it to trial and appeal.
All of which I think points out the prematurity of coming to any hasty judgements about the current investigation. Assuming it leads anywhere at all, there are many points in the process where any concerns raised by the DoJ can be addressed short of a lawsuit.
Here's a good article on the situation:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/co...rust/19492941/
The point being, when a company gets to a certain size, they have to be more careful about how they treat competitors. We may not be used to thinking about Apple that way (perennial underdog status hangover), but we should now.
Knowing the Feds are on the job is such a comfort. Only good can come from this...
I'm still waiting for someone to report this without quoting the New York Post. Doesn't the Times have some sources, what about the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal. they have no sources at the DoJ that can give them the scoop on this. that seems odd.
And as for having an iPad monopoly, where are the iPad "killers" anyway? You mean to say that because nobody else has yet chosen to produce a competing product a monopoly exists?
I believe you mean a 'tablet monopoly' and yes the ipad does have one. however monopolies aren't inherently evil. it's all in how you get there. if it is by having the most popular of the market, then that's fine. So long as you don't then abuse the gift you've been given.
How about Adobe using it's virtual monopoly to twist people's arms into paying for useless updates every year and a half?
i wouldn't go so far as to call them useless, but yes it does seem like they are way overpriced. and yes perhaps they are using their natural monopoly in ways that are open attempts to block other innovations and perhaps that should be looked at
You seem to be playing fast and loose in order to make your argument.
Microsoft doesn't have dominance, it has a monopoly.
actually it has both.
I wonder if Pystar is watching this and thinks it's time to test the water with more clones again.
only if they are morons. because this is apples to oranges (pardon the pun). no effect on that whole bit of nasty
I say cut the crap Apple, put Flash on the iPad with a kill switch. <snipped>
That should make everyone happy, including Apple who will get even richer.
more like burden Apple with dealing with a substandard tech. There's no working Flash on any tablet or mobile device at this point. now when that changes, perhaps the argument would work.
I agree, except for nit pick on the last sentence. Apple isn't preventing Amazons deal of the day - Apple is only refusing to spend their hard work and money developing marketing and advertising for songs that Amazon wil capture hundreds of thousands of songs before Apple can even sell one of those songs.
minor correction. At the time that the advance sales existed (apparently Amazon recently dropped that as a requirement in the program) it was before ANYONE else could sell the item. Online or Brick and Mortar.
But they might be found to dominate the mobile app retail market. That is more likely.
the trouble there is that mobile apps aren't flexible. you can no more use an iphone app on an android (and vice versa) than you can use a PSP game on an Xbox.
Apple should have simply said "Adobe has never delivered a version of Flash which works on the iPhone" and left it at that.
and even now they could say "Adobe has not delivered a mobile version of Flash that meets our quality requirements to ensure no negative impact on our users"
OK. So what's the problem? If as people are arguing, Apple's not offering Flash on the iPhone is a bad thing, it helps the competition.
indeed, much of the growth of HTML5 etc has been because Apple doesn't have Flash on the iphone etc.
Nonsense. 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.
That's just it. Amazon was demanding better terms via an earlier release date than all other sellers. And it could be argued that they were using their strong position in online retail to get those terms.
Personally, I have trouble seeing a serious financial interest here. There are two parts to Flash issue - no Flash Player on iPhone OS, and not allowing Flash derivative programs on the platform.
there is a minor error in your last bit. One that a lot of folks make.
It isn't just Flash. It's anything that isn't the specific languages Apple has spelled out in the agreement. No Flash, No Java, etc. so it really is not an Apple v Adobe issue.
Actually, Apple is loosing money in this so-called "Flash war." One of the biggest excuses for not wanting to buy an iPhone or iPad is that it will not play flash.
yeah you hear that a lot among the techno geeks. and yet 2 million ipads have sold in just under 2 months. and how many iphones and ipod touches are out there. several million.
Well Apple use no language at all which prevents an iPhone developer from also developing for other platforms.
they sure don't.
All Apple is doing is preventing you from developing using any other methods for the iPhone OS (i.e. no Cydia etc.)
technically they don't actually block Cydia. they haven't tried to sue etc. And a lot of Cydia apps were made under the Devo program but were rejected by Apple. So in a technical sense they do often work just fine.
All Apple has done is to say that they don't approve of such apps and thus won't support them or any damage their use causes, etc. same as me hacking my DVD player etc voids my warranty.
.
You all need to settle down. This is just more of the FUD storming that usually happens prior to any Apple (anticipated) new release or announcement. Set aside the fact that the Post is largely sensationalist, and that article replete with "insiders" and anonymous sources close to the issue. Of course the DOJ is going to investigate complaints - the labels have complained, the networks have complained, the publishers have complained, Nokia, Kodak, et al. Apple has built a very successful ecosystem, and it wouldn't be fair to let that go critically unexamined, especially for those content providers who are struggling with the digital age and their declining profitability.
Slow news days make for flaming sensationalist crap slung by the bye-writers for the rags and blogs - and who wants to do YET ANOTHER ARTICLE about veterans and those fighting for us in the military (which no one really wants to do in the liberal-side media anyway) on Memorial Day*.
Really folks - I know this is a popular place to vent off on these silly items but some of you really needed to get some sunshine and conversation before your posts. It's OK. Apple is a nice big corporation that can take care of itself.
*and for the record I deeply respect and appreciate the US men and women who gave selflessly in all conflicts, but especially those that were to ensure that the world remained a place where freedom could thrive, if allowed.
The definition is inherently situational, so there's no escaping the need for interpretation. Many times I think it comes down to an operational definition. If a company has behaved in markets in ways that no other can, then market power becomes essentially self-evident. If a company, for example, can insist on exclusive dealing, and get away with it, then by that evidence alone they have market power.
I don't disagree at all. That's very well-stated.
But the bolded section is the problem: courts often end up striking it down because they find some element of capriciousness inevitably -- at least, good lawyers are able to swing the argument to that effect (as they ultimately did with Microsoft in the US). It drags on for years. In the meantime, innovative and hard-charging companies start to self-censor their actions, and perhaps end up with errors of 'omission' (i.e., not pursue certain potentially value-creating paths since it might perceived as too risky from an antitrust standpoint) and leave value on the table.
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.
Ok, my bad. I forgot my rule not to expect you to actually read posts before replying. I didn't say they reduced the lead to a day. The restructuring Amazon proposed eliminated the advanced access for some songs (hence, it being 'just a sale'). The original Billboard article reported that Apple still pressured the labels not take part.
I don't think Apple should be forced to give anyone anything. But if they are offering up valuable resources to partners, I don't think the should then use it to force those labels not to deal with others nor is it for Apple to dictate the terms of trade between those labels and other stores. Whether it is Apple, MS or Walmart, I don't like it when dominant companies bully their partners (even in those partners are dirt sucking record labels).
People like you wouldn't understand that.
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.
Nice twisting to avoid the point. Obviously companies are allowed to use incentives to get terms that are to their liking when establishing the relationship between them and their partners. Using those incentives to undermine the relationships between those same partners and competitors isn't so above board. Legal? Probably. I am not a lawyer though, so I don't necessarily equate legal to right.
You mean they tried to use their monopoly in os to give away a browser in order to put Netscape out of business. Because that is exactly what you are saying.
That was once claim. The OEMs also claimed MS was using their advertising dollars to force the OEMs into accepting their decisions on how the OEMs could deal with Netscape. There were many claims.
Why should Apple be FORCED to put extra advertising dollars into music they aren't first to get?
They shouldn't be. I don't think it is right that they use access this advertising space to influence trade between the labels and Amazon.
No, a monopoly would have to have at least near 100% market share to be classed as a monopoly, otherwise it is just the biggest player.
Almost there. Percentage is important, but just as important or more so is influence within the market.
Having the monopoly isn't illegal either, by the way. Abusing your market position (be it 60% or ~100%) to stifle innovation/competition is the illegal bit.
Umm...well, yeah. Who said otherwise?
Apple only has about 70% of the DIGITAL ONLY downloads, and the music labels have already shown that to not be enough to "control things" as the labels still have ultimate control of the content and have been able to dictate that Apple introduce variable pricing, amongst other things.
This whole thing is a crock.
The labels did get that concession. Which was the result of Apple and the label negotiating. It is probably a good thing that when Apple was first negotiating these deals that Walmart didn't call each of the labels and threaten to consign their new releases to some dark corner if they dealt with Apple. Apple's ability to deal with the labels would have been unfairly influenced by Walmart, if that had happened. Would that have been OK?
I don't disagree at all. That's very well-stated.
But the bolded section is the problem: courts often end up striking it down because they find some element of capriciousness inevitably -- at least, good lawyers are able to swing the argument to that effect (as they ultimately did with Microsoft in the US). It drags on for years. In the meantime, innovative and hard-charging companies start to self-censor their actions, and perhaps end up with errors of 'omission' (i.e., not pursue certain potentially value-creating paths since it might perceived as too risky from an antitrust standpoint) and leave value on the table.
Microsoft didn't have a prayer on the market power issue. If they'd have one that point, they'd have won the antitrust suit. Not sure if that's what you meant, though.
Microsoft didn't have a prayer on the market power issue. If they'd have one that point, they'd have won the antitrust suit. Not sure if that's what you meant, though.
I was referring to the fact that DoJ ultimately had to settle. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and an appeals court struck down some of the key elements of a lower court's findings against Microsoft (and slapped the wrist of the lower court judge for bias). It's admittedly somewhat dim recollection on my part.
Now, I happen to think that Microsoft was the villain here, don't get me wrong. I was simply referring to the fact that courts strike down these things because of perceived capriciousness, and the fact that it is 'situational' case-making or arguments based on the supposedly 'self-evident' nature of 'market power' that perhaps leads to that conclusion.
It's late where I am and I need to turn in......(yawn).....
I hope the DoJ looks into Starbucks.. because when I was in there this past week they were only selling StarBucks coffee, there wasn't a Foldgers crystal to be found... what type of walled garden crap is going on in the coffee industry?
Awesome!
So what? Vertical integration in monopolistic?!
You need to learn some Econ 101.
Not necessarily, but in Apple's case it's heading that way.
This is not very different than Apple using their position to 'encourage' the labels from not taking part in Amazon's promotions. The reports are that Apple uses it's dominance in online music sales to encourage labels not to take part in Amazon's promotions. The reported threat would be Apple would refuse to provide marketing support through iTunes for those songs that were offered in Amazon's promotions. Sound familiar? Play ball with us, do not do freely do business with a competitor or you will suffer consequences.
QUOTE]
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 was referring to the fact that DoJ ultimately had to settle. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and an appeals court struck down some of the key elements of a lower court's findings against Microsoft (and slapped the wrist of the lower court judge for bias). It's admittedly somewhat dim recollection on my part.
Now, I happen to think that Microsoft was the villain here, don't get me wrong. I was simply referring to the fact that courts strike down these things because of perceived capriciousness, and the fact that it is 'situational' case-making or arguments based on the supposedly 'self-evident' nature of 'market power' that perhaps leads to that conclusion.
It's late where I am and I need to turn in......(yawn).....
No, that's not what happened. The Findings of Fact were upheld on appeal (unanimous decision by the en banc Appeals Court), but the remedy written by Judge Jackson was thrown out and the case referred to another federal judge for the formulation of a new remedy. Jackson was removed because of some things he said to a journalist about the case which were supposed to be embargoed until after the case was done, but he released them prematurely. Then came the election of 2000. The new Bush DoJ snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory by recommending a weak Consent Decree, which the new judge in the case accepted. Pretty much the damage had already been done in the Findings of Fact, though. Microsoft tried to get them overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, which did not take the case.