I was talking about the case of Amazon's offer to the labels to take part in their promotion, without the requirement of advanced, exclusive access. It would simply be agreeing to take part in an Amazon promotion. Apple still pressuring the labels not to take part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Shit, forget about the early access. As I have repeated, the original BillBoard story says that Amazon went to the labels and offered to drop that requirement (not across the board). But even for those offerings that would be promoted without Amazon getting early access to, Apple still pressured the labels not to deal.
First, your timeline is wrong. When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained.
The rest is just hearsay. But even your source seems to admit that Amazon was still getting preferential promotion on the Label's sites - and Apple has no obligation to subsidize that.
I wish you'd explain how Apple is interfering with that relationship, anyway? If the labels and Amazon want to reach a deal, Apple can't stop them (and apparently never tried). Instead, Apple just said "we'll choose to promote labels and songs that do not cripple us". That's a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Apple is the exclusive seller of native iPhone apps. They do their best to make it impossible to install any competing apps.
So? Please point to any relevant section of antitrust law that makes that illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
But how much market power? Isn't "monopoly power" a requirement for many of the varied antitrust laws?
Some, but not all. Price fixing prosecution, for example, doesn't require monopoly power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
That is called "retail price maintenance". I would be very surprised if companies with monopoly power in a market were allowed to do that.
You're apparently surprised at a lot of things because you insist on posting without knowing what you're talking about. It's not illegal - for any company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
The market for software for mobile devices. Check out Handango for an example.
Apple controls that market? So no one can write or sell an Android app without Apple's approval? Or a WebOS app?
97% of mobile phones sold in this country (or 84% of smart phones if you prefer) have absolutely nothing to do with Apple. So 84% of smart phone users are free to purchase anything they wish whether Apple likes it or not. So how is Apple controlling that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
If it were "perfectly...legal" it is unlikely that the DOJ would investigate. It remains to be seen whether it was perfectly or imperfectly legal, or whether it was some degree of illegal.
This is, of course, nonsense. First, we don't know that there's a formal investigation. All we have is a few rumors.
But even if there IS an formal investigation, there's no evidence yet (certainly no one has presented a rational argument here of what Apple is allegedly guilty of) that Apple did anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty, right? DOJ is required to look into any complaints that they receive. Only a tiny percentage ever turn into full investigations and even fewer of those have enough evidence for conviction.
And I take efforts to emphasize that. Not of this is proven. In fact, even the reports of an investigation are just reports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
b) It still doesn't make sense for Apple to spend money on the promotion of songs which the record labels have established special deals with a competitor for. Are you saying the record labels ought to be able to dictate which songs Apple promotes and how much they spend?
No I am not saying that. The labels and Apple would negotiate how they will promote within their relationship. The labels and Amazon should negotiate how they will promote within their relationship. Amazon should not dictate under what terms the labels can do business with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
c) If anyone has market dominance here, it's the record labels. They are able to dictate price, who gets DRM free music, have exclusive control of music from individual artists, etc., etc. All Apple gets to choose is what the will spend their money promoting.
Agreed. They ought to be investigate before any of the retailers are looked at. Their business practices are shameful. But two wrongs don't make a right...if in fact Apple did anything wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
d) The situation is not at all analogous to Microsoft/Netscape. Microsoft used its monopoly position in personal computer operating system to attempt to leverage control of other technologies -- i.e., web browsers, and arguably the web itself. In this case, even if we assume the worst of Apple, they will have used a leading position in online music sales to avoid being forced by the record labels to spend marketing dollars as the labels dictate.
That is ignoring that MS also used their control of their own marketing dollars to dictate how their partners could deal with a competitor. If the reports are true, then that is exactly what Apple is doing; using their control of their marketing resources to dictate how their partners can deal with a competitor.
So in 2008 the Daily Deal didn't have the 1 day exclusive and no grumbling from Apple mentioned in the article.
In 2009, the Amazon one day exclusive was introduced that included "digital marketing support as a banner ad on an artist's MySpace page and messages on label and artist Web sites and social network feeds." That's when Apple objected and said they would pull their promotions and marketing from the iTunes Store, which is more than reasonable. Look at the numbers sold by Amazon on the Daily Deal.(re: Mariah Carey's "Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel" U.S. sales of 168,000 units -Vampire Weekend's "Contra," U.S. sales of 124,000)
Soooooo, not only was Amazon getting a one day exclusive the Labels were to provide free promotion on their websites and the artists were to do the same. Anti-competitive much?
And Apple would have every right to say to the labels, if you are giving a better deal to Amazon, we aren't going to play ball. That would be getting themselves a better deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Finally, the article states Apple is "voicing their displeasure" even with the Daily Deal sans the exclusive, but it doesn't say Apple is pulling their marketing / promotions over these deals, even though Apple would be correct in pulling marketing / promotion over this deal also.
To complete the snippet "has continued to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support." Continue being the key word. As in a continuation of their prior 'encouragement' to avoid the deal. A continuation of "Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?
Someone had to be first to get DRM free. The retailers are not a cabal that negotiates en masse with the labels. Apple could have gotten it first, but the labels choose to use Amazon first. This is an example is two parties negotiating issues that related to their own trade. Just as Apple negotiating with the labels resulted in Apple agree to variable pricing. Neither is an example of the deals between two parties being used to enforce details of separate contracts between other parties. Those are really bad examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
The truth of the matter is that Apple is under attack not only by the competition but by the Labels and they finally said,"Enough of that %#(!".
Apple is hardly under attack from their labels. The labels are certainly greedy bastards that would take more from Apple if they could. They are also so behind the times that if they had their way, they would modify their deal with Apple drastically to be more in their favour but that would certainly result in an inferior iTunes. They are out of touch and are bullies themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Apple is not interfering, they are only holding off providing free marketing and promotion, which costs money, since Amazon's anti-competitive behavior limits Apple's sales.
When MS threatened to withhold advertising resources it was counted as interference.
The early access is important, as Amazon offered the Daily Deals in 2008 a year before they requested the 1 day exclusive with no participation in marketing and promotion from the Labels/Artists. And it seems Apple didn't grumble about this.
Yes, advanced access is important and was the reason that Apple first complained. But even without it, Apple is still 'continuing' to discourage participation.
... That is ignoring that MS also used their control of their own marketing dollars to dictate how their partners could deal with a competitor. If the reports are true, then that is exactly what Apple is doing; using their control of their marketing resources to dictate how their partners can deal with a competitor.
It's a huge leap of imagination to say that Apple is able to dictate to record labels how they can deal with competitors. If anything, the history of the last few years suggests exactly the opposite. It's also a leap of imagination to say Apple did so in this case, even if record labels might wish to portray it as such (and they certainly have a high level of self-interest in doing so). Exactly where is the line on one side of which Apple dictates to the record labels and the record labels decide that maybe it's not in the best economic interest to screw Apple over because they aren't willing to play along. Wherever one might reasonably draw that line, it seems pretty clear that Apple does not have the power to dictate anything to record labels or they'd have been offering DRM free music (before Amazon) without variable pricing.
First, your timeline is wrong. When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained.
The rest is just hearsay. But even your source seems to admit that Amazon was still getting preferential promotion on the Label's sites - and Apple has no obligation to subsidize that.
It's all hearsay at this point. Using that excuse to ignore parts you don't like is just lazy.
At least it seems you finally caught up (and it only took 3 posts this time-yay progress!) and realize it isn't ALL about early access. But let's fix your statements, with a little more honesty this time.
When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained. When Amazon offered to drop advanced access, Apple still complained
I have mentioned to you before. Honesty in posts goes a long way to improving credibility. Unfortunate to have to repeat it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I wish you'd explain how Apple is interfering with that relationship, anyway? If the labels and Amazon want to reach a deal, Apple can't stop them (and apparently never tried). Instead, Apple just said "we'll choose to promote labels and songs that do not cripple us". That's a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to do.
A couple simple questions for you. I know you will dodge and try to obfuscate again, but let's try. When MS threatened to withhold marketing dollars from OEMs that placed that shortcut for Netscape on the desktop, was that interfering? The fact that they were a monopoly made it illegal, but without the monopoly would it have been right?
But how much market power? Isn't "monopoly power" a requirement for many of the varied antitrust laws?
The term monopoly is used, but the operative concept is market power. Monopolies are not illegal. In fact copyrights and patents are a forms of government-sanctioned monopolies, but they are restricted in term. The laws are all about maintaining open competition. If a company has the ability to restrain competition, use dominance in one market to extend that dominance to another, or set prices, among other competitive abuses, then they may have exercised illegal market power.
It's a huge leap of imagination to say that Apple is able to dictate to record labels how they can deal with competitors. If anything, the history of the last few years suggests exactly the opposite. It's also a leap of imagination to say Apple did so in this case, even if record labels might wish to portray it as such (and they certainly have a high level of self-interest in doing so). Exactly where is the line on one side of which Apple dictates to the record labels and the record labels decide that maybe it's not in the best economic interest to screw Apple over because they aren't willing to play along. Wherever one might reasonably draw that line, it seems pretty clear that Apple does not have the power to dictate anything to record labels or they'd have been offering DRM free music (before Amazon) without variable pricing.
Apple doesn't have the power to dictate every detail of their relationship with the labels. That is true. Through their cabal, the labels have lots of clout in the supply of the music and use that to affect their contracts with Apple. But Apple has clout and influence over the online retail distribution side. And the can use this influence to affect their contracts with the labels. As it should be.
But they can also use this clout to influence the contracts between the labels and their competitors. Have they? We don't know. Reports say yes. If they did, was it illegal? We don't know. If they have dominant control over the distribution of online music then it might be.
You're apparently surprised at a lot of things because you insist on posting without knowing what you're talking about. It's not illegal - for any company.
Wrong again:
"On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06?480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[2] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address approach the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.
...
n 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the repeal of Miller-Tydings implied that the Sherman Act's complete ban of vertical price fixing was again effective, and that even the 21st Amendment could not shield California's liquor resale price maintenance regime from the reach of the Sherman Act. California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980). Thus, from the 1975 enactment of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act to the 2008 Leegin decision, resale price maintenance was again no longer legal in the United States."
Apple doesn't have the power to dictate every detail of their relationship with the labels. That is true. Through their cabal, the labels have lots of clout in the supply of the music and use that to affect their contracts with Apple. But Apple has clout and influence over the online retail distribution side. And the can use this influence to affect their contracts with the labels. As it should be.
But they can also use this clout to influence the contracts between the labels and their competitors. Have they? We don't know. Reports say yes. If they did, was it illegal? We don't know. If they have dominant control over the distribution of online music then it might be.
It would seem, based on the information we all have, as though Amazon has either more power, or colluded with record labels to allow a) Amazon to gain more power and b) allow record labels more power to dictate terms to other retailers.
The term monopoly is used, but the operative concept is market power. Monopolies are not illegal. In fact copyrights and patents are a forms of government-sanctioned monopolies, but they are restricted in term. The laws are all about maintaining open competition. If a company has the ability to restrain competition, use dominance in one market to extend that dominance to another, or set prices, among other competitive abuses, then they may have exercised illegal market power.
Given that we agree on the concepts, any disagreement is related only to terminology, and so can be overlooked.
And Apple would have every right to say to the labels, if you are giving a better deal to Amazon, we aren't going to play ball. That would be getting themselves a better deal.
That is exactly what Apple did. We agree then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
To complete the snippet "has continued to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support." Continue being the key word. As in a continuation of their prior 'encouragement' to avoid the deal. A continuation of "Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."
No, the article states Apple voiced their displeasure, it did not state they would withhold marketing / promotion under these circumstances, even though Apple would be perfectly in the right to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Someone had to be first to get DRM free. The retailers are not a cabal that negotiates en masse with the labels. Apple could have gotten it first, but the labels choose to use Amazon first. This is an example is two parties negotiating issues that related to their own trade. Just as Apple negotiating with the labels resulted in Apple agree to variable pricing. Neither is an example of the deals between two parties being used to enforce details of separated contracts between other parties. Those are really bad examples.
You completely and totally missed the point of my statement, "I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?"
If Apple wields such great power how was Apple forced to accept lesser deals from the Labels, when we know they were fighting for better deals, especially since Job's stated in 2002 that DRM was a failed method of selling songs. And it is well publicized that Apple did no want variable rate pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Apple is hardly under attack from their labels. The labels are certainly greedy bastards that would take more from Apple if they could. They are also so behind the times that if they had their way, they would modify their deal with Apple drastically to be more in their favour but that would certainly result in an inferior iTunes. They are out of touch and are bullies themselves.
You delude yourself if you don't think the Labels aren't undercutting Apple @ every step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
When MS threatened to withhold advertising resources it was counted as interference.
You failed to mention that Microsoft was threatening to withhold advertising / promotional $ to their customers (Dell, HP, Compac, Acer, IBM, etc.) Apple is not doing this - Apple owns the iTunes store. <the following is sarcasm> Are you suggesting that Apple provide free advertising / promotions for songs on the Amazon on-line store?
Your constant harping on the similarities between Apple and Microsoft don't hold up. If anything, a similarity could be made between Microsoft and the Record Labels, if the Record Labels were withholding free promotional material from selected customers, Apple, Amazon, etc. - Oh wait, that is what Amazon is trying to get the Record Labels to do, harm Apple in favor of Amazon = Microsoft harm Dell in favor of HP if they promote Netscape.
The differences between the Microsoft case and this investigation are substantial - even monumental.
It would seem, based on the information we all have, as though Amazon has either more power, or colluded with record labels to allow a) Amazon to gain more power and b) allow record labels more power to dictate terms to other retailers.
or that the record labels, through their power, used Amazon to gain more power. Yes, that is likely and should be investigated before Apple. Amazon is a small player, so them gaining more likely wouldn't run afoul of any legalities. Apple might not be a big enough player either. But they might be. Your point b is likely dead on.
or that the record labels, through their power, used Amazon to gain more power. Yes, that is likely and should be investigated before Apple. Amazon is a small player, so them gaining more likely wouldn't run afoul of any legalities. Apple might not be a big enough player either. But they might be. Your point b is likely dead on.
I would agree with everything but the bit about Amazon being a "small player". They're a retail giant, and, if memory serves, one of the top 3 music retailers in the US.
Right. And so they could then ask for a better deal themselves...as opposed to derailing any dealings with Amazon. Huge difference between influencing your own contracts and influencing others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
No, the article states Apple voiced their displeasure, it did not state they would withhold marketing / promotion under these circumstances, even though Apple would be perfectly in the right to do so.
"Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."
and once exclusivity was dropped
"has [b]continued[/i] to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support."
Continued to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
You completely and totally missed the point of my statement, "I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?"
If Apple wields such great power how was Apple forced to accept lesser deals from the Labels, when we know they were fighting for better deals, especially since Job's stated in 2002 that DRM was a failed method of selling songs. And it is well publicized that Apple did no want variable rate pricing.
Oh, I understood your point. It just wasn't a very good one. Apple doesn't hold all the power in their relationship with the labels. The labels, acting in unison, have a lot of power and this is used in their negotiations with Apple. But Apple seems to have enough clout to influence the labels dealings with Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
You delude yourself if you don't think the Labels aren't undercutting Apple @ every step.
They are certainly out for themselves. So is Apple. They are in a partnership. Both will try to get the most out of their relationship. Unless one side is expected to always and only have their partners interests at heart, it's hardly nefarious. Is Apple trying to undercut and attack the labels because they try to get what is best for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
You failed to mention that Microsoft was threatening to withhold advertising / promotional $ to their customers (Dell, HP, Compac, Acer, IBM, etc.) Apple is not doing this - Apple owns the iTunes store. <the following is sarcasm> Are you suggesting that Apple provide free advertising / promotions for songs on the Amazon on-line store?
MS was threatening to withhold marketing resources from the partners. Apple isn't doing this? Well, then there really is no case. The DoJ should pack up. But if they are doing this...you seem to think it wouldn't be right. or maybe you don't. Not sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Your constant harping on the similarities between Apple and Microsoft don't hold up. If anything, a similarity could be made between Microsoft and the Record Labels, if the Record Labels were withholding free promotional material from selected customers, Apple, Amazon, etc. - Oh wait, that is what Amazon is trying to get the Record Labels to do, harm Apple in favor of Amazon = Microsoft harm Dell in favor of HP if they promote Netscape.
You are confusing Amazon with the labels. Amazon has no clout. At best they are a tool used by the labels. As for the labels, yes, they should be investigated and investigated before Apple. Their practices are as bad or worse.
I would agree with everything but the bit about Amazon being a "small player". They're a retail giant, and, if memory serves, one of the top 3 music retailers in the US.
They are a retailing giant and hey are 3rd in the total music sales category with 12% compared to Apple's 28%. But in downloaded music sales, Apple is at ~70% and Amazon, I think, it around 8%, which I think makes them second. Being that distant a 2nd place makes them a small player, in download music sales. Isn't the Zune the #2 PMP and MS a huge company? They are still a small player in the PMP market.
Perhaps looking at only the downloaded music sales is too narrow in scope. But, as it is a large market by itself and is the only growing segment (thanks to Apple) of the music sales market as a whole, it seems appropriate.
I'd buy an iPad right now if Apple allowed us to sideload apps without going through the app store. But as long as it's a walled garden, I feel like it'll never truly be mine. It'd be nice if they were mandated to allow side loading. 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?
This CRAZY, radical, maybe even communist like thinking is what ignited the Jailbreak community. My advice... search them out... they are providing an environment that MANY people think Apple should be and are upset enough to make it happen anyway with or without Apples blessing.
The line of investigation rumored to being pursued by the DoJ seems ridiculous as much of what Apple is accused of doing is the way businesses have operated for decades.
If Apple isn't allowed to dictate what type of programing development tools run on its closed product, such a decision from the DoJ could be used as precedence for other systems, such as those offered by Nintendo, Sony and MS.
As for the blockade on hiring employees amongst the big three tech companies, I would be curious to see what the investigation finds. I recall seeing numerous employee contracts drafted, when I worked at a law firm, with terms stating that after a person leaves a company, they will not work for another company in the same industry for a set period of time. There was a lengthy list of the penalties that would incur should someone break the contract and go to work for another company before the time had expired. So once again, another far sweeping precedence could be set by the DoJ depending on what the outcome is.
I don't expect this probe to move fast as I think the DoJ will take its time and be careful with how they present their final conclusion, as the results could effect a great deal of businesses.
... Perhaps looking at only the downloaded music sales is too narrow in scope. But, as it is a large market by itself and is the only growing segment (thanks to Apple) of the music sales market as a whole, it seems appropriate.
Yes, it's a completely artificial segmentation. Amazon wields huge power in retail, across the board.
Comments
I was talking about the case of Amazon's offer to the labels to take part in their promotion, without the requirement of advanced, exclusive access. It would simply be agreeing to take part in an Amazon promotion. Apple still pressuring the labels not to take part.
Shit, forget about the early access. As I have repeated, the original BillBoard story says that Amazon went to the labels and offered to drop that requirement (not across the board). But even for those offerings that would be promoted without Amazon getting early access to, Apple still pressured the labels not to deal.
First, your timeline is wrong. When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained.
The rest is just hearsay. But even your source seems to admit that Amazon was still getting preferential promotion on the Label's sites - and Apple has no obligation to subsidize that.
I wish you'd explain how Apple is interfering with that relationship, anyway? If the labels and Amazon want to reach a deal, Apple can't stop them (and apparently never tried). Instead, Apple just said "we'll choose to promote labels and songs that do not cripple us". That's a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to do.
Apple is the exclusive seller of native iPhone apps. They do their best to make it impossible to install any competing apps.
So? Please point to any relevant section of antitrust law that makes that illegal.
But how much market power? Isn't "monopoly power" a requirement for many of the varied antitrust laws?
Some, but not all. Price fixing prosecution, for example, doesn't require monopoly power.
That is called "retail price maintenance". I would be very surprised if companies with monopoly power in a market were allowed to do that.
You're apparently surprised at a lot of things because you insist on posting without knowing what you're talking about. It's not illegal - for any company.
The market for software for mobile devices. Check out Handango for an example.
Apple controls that market? So no one can write or sell an Android app without Apple's approval? Or a WebOS app?
97% of mobile phones sold in this country (or 84% of smart phones if you prefer) have absolutely nothing to do with Apple. So 84% of smart phone users are free to purchase anything they wish whether Apple likes it or not. So how is Apple controlling that?
If it were "perfectly...legal" it is unlikely that the DOJ would investigate. It remains to be seen whether it was perfectly or imperfectly legal, or whether it was some degree of illegal.
This is, of course, nonsense. First, we don't know that there's a formal investigation. All we have is a few rumors.
But even if there IS an formal investigation, there's no evidence yet (certainly no one has presented a rational argument here of what Apple is allegedly guilty of) that Apple did anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty, right? DOJ is required to look into any complaints that they receive. Only a tiny percentage ever turn into full investigations and even fewer of those have enough evidence for conviction.
a) As you mentioned before, they "reportedly" ...
And I take efforts to emphasize that. Not of this is proven. In fact, even the reports of an investigation are just reports.
b) It still doesn't make sense for Apple to spend money on the promotion of songs which the record labels have established special deals with a competitor for. Are you saying the record labels ought to be able to dictate which songs Apple promotes and how much they spend?
No I am not saying that. The labels and Apple would negotiate how they will promote within their relationship. The labels and Amazon should negotiate how they will promote within their relationship. Amazon should not dictate under what terms the labels can do business with Apple.
c) If anyone has market dominance here, it's the record labels. They are able to dictate price, who gets DRM free music, have exclusive control of music from individual artists, etc., etc. All Apple gets to choose is what the will spend their money promoting.
Agreed. They ought to be investigate before any of the retailers are looked at. Their business practices are shameful. But two wrongs don't make a right...if in fact Apple did anything wrong.
d) The situation is not at all analogous to Microsoft/Netscape. Microsoft used its monopoly position in personal computer operating system to attempt to leverage control of other technologies -- i.e., web browsers, and arguably the web itself. In this case, even if we assume the worst of Apple, they will have used a leading position in online music sales to avoid being forced by the record labels to spend marketing dollars as the labels dictate.
That is ignoring that MS also used their control of their own marketing dollars to dictate how their partners could deal with a competitor. If the reports are true, then that is exactly what Apple is doing; using their control of their marketing resources to dictate how their partners can deal with a competitor.
So in 2008 the Daily Deal didn't have the 1 day exclusive and no grumbling from Apple mentioned in the article.
In 2009, the Amazon one day exclusive was introduced that included "digital marketing support as a banner ad on an artist's MySpace page and messages on label and artist Web sites and social network feeds." That's when Apple objected and said they would pull their promotions and marketing from the iTunes Store, which is more than reasonable. Look at the numbers sold by Amazon on the Daily Deal.(re: Mariah Carey's "Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel" U.S. sales of 168,000 units -Vampire Weekend's "Contra," U.S. sales of 124,000)
Soooooo, not only was Amazon getting a one day exclusive the Labels were to provide free promotion on their websites and the artists were to do the same. Anti-competitive much?
And Apple would have every right to say to the labels, if you are giving a better deal to Amazon, we aren't going to play ball. That would be getting themselves a better deal.
Finally, the article states Apple is "voicing their displeasure" even with the Daily Deal sans the exclusive, but it doesn't say Apple is pulling their marketing / promotions over these deals, even though Apple would be correct in pulling marketing / promotion over this deal also.
To complete the snippet "has continued to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support." Continue being the key word. As in a continuation of their prior 'encouragement' to avoid the deal. A continuation of "Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."
I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?
Someone had to be first to get DRM free. The retailers are not a cabal that negotiates en masse with the labels. Apple could have gotten it first, but the labels choose to use Amazon first. This is an example is two parties negotiating issues that related to their own trade. Just as Apple negotiating with the labels resulted in Apple agree to variable pricing. Neither is an example of the deals between two parties being used to enforce details of separate contracts between other parties. Those are really bad examples.
The truth of the matter is that Apple is under attack not only by the competition but by the Labels and they finally said,"Enough of that %#(!".
Apple is hardly under attack from their labels. The labels are certainly greedy bastards that would take more from Apple if they could. They are also so behind the times that if they had their way, they would modify their deal with Apple drastically to be more in their favour but that would certainly result in an inferior iTunes. They are out of touch and are bullies themselves.
Apple is not interfering, they are only holding off providing free marketing and promotion, which costs money, since Amazon's anti-competitive behavior limits Apple's sales.
When MS threatened to withhold advertising resources it was counted as interference.
The early access is important, as Amazon offered the Daily Deals in 2008 a year before they requested the 1 day exclusive with no participation in marketing and promotion from the Labels/Artists. And it seems Apple didn't grumble about this.
Yes, advanced access is important and was the reason that Apple first complained. But even without it, Apple is still 'continuing' to discourage participation.
... That is ignoring that MS also used their control of their own marketing dollars to dictate how their partners could deal with a competitor. If the reports are true, then that is exactly what Apple is doing; using their control of their marketing resources to dictate how their partners can deal with a competitor.
It's a huge leap of imagination to say that Apple is able to dictate to record labels how they can deal with competitors. If anything, the history of the last few years suggests exactly the opposite. It's also a leap of imagination to say Apple did so in this case, even if record labels might wish to portray it as such (and they certainly have a high level of self-interest in doing so). Exactly where is the line on one side of which Apple dictates to the record labels and the record labels decide that maybe it's not in the best economic interest to screw Apple over because they aren't willing to play along. Wherever one might reasonably draw that line, it seems pretty clear that Apple does not have the power to dictate anything to record labels or they'd have been offering DRM free music (before Amazon) without variable pricing.
First, your timeline is wrong. When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained.
The rest is just hearsay. But even your source seems to admit that Amazon was still getting preferential promotion on the Label's sites - and Apple has no obligation to subsidize that.
It's all hearsay at this point. Using that excuse to ignore parts you don't like is just lazy.
At least it seems you finally caught up (and it only took 3 posts this time-yay progress!) and realize it isn't ALL about early access. But let's fix your statements, with a little more honesty this time.
When Amazon didn't get advance rights, Apple didn't complain. When Amazon did get advance rights, Apple complained. When Amazon offered to drop advanced access, Apple still complained
I have mentioned to you before. Honesty in posts goes a long way to improving credibility. Unfortunate to have to repeat it.
I wish you'd explain how Apple is interfering with that relationship, anyway? If the labels and Amazon want to reach a deal, Apple can't stop them (and apparently never tried). Instead, Apple just said "we'll choose to promote labels and songs that do not cripple us". That's a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to do.
A couple simple questions for you. I know you will dodge and try to obfuscate again, but let's try. When MS threatened to withhold marketing dollars from OEMs that placed that shortcut for Netscape on the desktop, was that interfering? The fact that they were a monopoly made it illegal, but without the monopoly would it have been right?
try hard seth, try hard.
But how much market power? Isn't "monopoly power" a requirement for many of the varied antitrust laws?
The term monopoly is used, but the operative concept is market power. Monopolies are not illegal. In fact copyrights and patents are a forms of government-sanctioned monopolies, but they are restricted in term. The laws are all about maintaining open competition. If a company has the ability to restrain competition, use dominance in one market to extend that dominance to another, or set prices, among other competitive abuses, then they may have exercised illegal market power.
It's a huge leap of imagination to say that Apple is able to dictate to record labels how they can deal with competitors. If anything, the history of the last few years suggests exactly the opposite. It's also a leap of imagination to say Apple did so in this case, even if record labels might wish to portray it as such (and they certainly have a high level of self-interest in doing so). Exactly where is the line on one side of which Apple dictates to the record labels and the record labels decide that maybe it's not in the best economic interest to screw Apple over because they aren't willing to play along. Wherever one might reasonably draw that line, it seems pretty clear that Apple does not have the power to dictate anything to record labels or they'd have been offering DRM free music (before Amazon) without variable pricing.
Apple doesn't have the power to dictate every detail of their relationship with the labels. That is true. Through their cabal, the labels have lots of clout in the supply of the music and use that to affect their contracts with Apple. But Apple has clout and influence over the online retail distribution side. And the can use this influence to affect their contracts with the labels. As it should be.
But they can also use this clout to influence the contracts between the labels and their competitors. Have they? We don't know. Reports say yes. If they did, was it illegal? We don't know. If they have dominant control over the distribution of online music then it might be.
You're apparently surprised at a lot of things because you insist on posting without knowing what you're talking about. It's not illegal - for any company.
Wrong again:
"On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06?480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[2] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address approach the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.
...
n 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the repeal of Miller-Tydings implied that the Sherman Act's complete ban of vertical price fixing was again effective, and that even the 21st Amendment could not shield California's liquor resale price maintenance regime from the reach of the Sherman Act. California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980). Thus, from the 1975 enactment of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act to the 2008 Leegin decision, resale price maintenance was again no longer legal in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance
Apple doesn't have the power to dictate every detail of their relationship with the labels. That is true. Through their cabal, the labels have lots of clout in the supply of the music and use that to affect their contracts with Apple. But Apple has clout and influence over the online retail distribution side. And the can use this influence to affect their contracts with the labels. As it should be.
But they can also use this clout to influence the contracts between the labels and their competitors. Have they? We don't know. Reports say yes. If they did, was it illegal? We don't know. If they have dominant control over the distribution of online music then it might be.
It would seem, based on the information we all have, as though Amazon has either more power, or colluded with record labels to allow a) Amazon to gain more power and b) allow record labels more power to dictate terms to other retailers.
The term monopoly is used, but the operative concept is market power. Monopolies are not illegal. In fact copyrights and patents are a forms of government-sanctioned monopolies, but they are restricted in term. The laws are all about maintaining open competition. If a company has the ability to restrain competition, use dominance in one market to extend that dominance to another, or set prices, among other competitive abuses, then they may have exercised illegal market power.
Given that we agree on the concepts, any disagreement is related only to terminology, and so can be overlooked.
And Apple would have every right to say to the labels, if you are giving a better deal to Amazon, we aren't going to play ball. That would be getting themselves a better deal.
That is exactly what Apple did. We agree then.
To complete the snippet "has continued to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support." Continue being the key word. As in a continuation of their prior 'encouragement' to avoid the deal. A continuation of "Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."
No, the article states Apple voiced their displeasure, it did not state they would withhold marketing / promotion under these circumstances, even though Apple would be perfectly in the right to do so.
Someone had to be first to get DRM free. The retailers are not a cabal that negotiates en masse with the labels. Apple could have gotten it first, but the labels choose to use Amazon first. This is an example is two parties negotiating issues that related to their own trade. Just as Apple negotiating with the labels resulted in Apple agree to variable pricing. Neither is an example of the deals between two parties being used to enforce details of separated contracts between other parties. Those are really bad examples.
You completely and totally missed the point of my statement, "I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?"
If Apple wields such great power how was Apple forced to accept lesser deals from the Labels, when we know they were fighting for better deals, especially since Job's stated in 2002 that DRM was a failed method of selling songs. And it is well publicized that Apple did no want variable rate pricing.
Apple is hardly under attack from their labels. The labels are certainly greedy bastards that would take more from Apple if they could. They are also so behind the times that if they had their way, they would modify their deal with Apple drastically to be more in their favour but that would certainly result in an inferior iTunes. They are out of touch and are bullies themselves.
You delude yourself if you don't think the Labels aren't undercutting Apple @ every step.
When MS threatened to withhold advertising resources it was counted as interference.
You failed to mention that Microsoft was threatening to withhold advertising / promotional $ to their customers (Dell, HP, Compac, Acer, IBM, etc.) Apple is not doing this - Apple owns the iTunes store. <the following is sarcasm> Are you suggesting that Apple provide free advertising / promotions for songs on the Amazon on-line store?
Your constant harping on the similarities between Apple and Microsoft don't hold up. If anything, a similarity could be made between Microsoft and the Record Labels, if the Record Labels were withholding free promotional material from selected customers, Apple, Amazon, etc. - Oh wait, that is what Amazon is trying to get the Record Labels to do, harm Apple in favor of Amazon = Microsoft harm Dell in favor of HP if they promote Netscape.
The differences between the Microsoft case and this investigation are substantial - even monumental.
It would seem, based on the information we all have, as though Amazon has either more power, or colluded with record labels to allow a) Amazon to gain more power and b) allow record labels more power to dictate terms to other retailers.
or that the record labels, through their power, used Amazon to gain more power. Yes, that is likely and should be investigated before Apple. Amazon is a small player, so them gaining more likely wouldn't run afoul of any legalities. Apple might not be a big enough player either. But they might be. Your point b is likely dead on.
or that the record labels, through their power, used Amazon to gain more power. Yes, that is likely and should be investigated before Apple. Amazon is a small player, so them gaining more likely wouldn't run afoul of any legalities. Apple might not be a big enough player either. But they might be. Your point b is likely dead on.
I would agree with everything but the bit about Amazon being a "small player". They're a retail giant, and, if memory serves, one of the top 3 music retailers in the US.
The differences between the Microsoft case and this investigation are substantial - even monumental.
The basic difference is that Microsoft was a monopoly - as a seller, it had significant market power.
Apple, OTOH, may instead be a monopsony in the world of the record labels, which is a buyer with significant market power.
I have no idea of how this sort of basic difference should affect the analysis, but the difference is so stark that it likely needs to be considered.
That is exactly what Apple did. We agree then.
Right. And so they could then ask for a better deal themselves...as opposed to derailing any dealings with Amazon. Huge difference between influencing your own contracts and influencing others.
No, the article states Apple voiced their displeasure, it did not state they would withhold marketing / promotion under these circumstances, even though Apple would be perfectly in the right to do so.
"Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals."
and once exclusivity was dropped
"has [b]continued[/i] to voice its displeasure with other aspects of the promotion, such as label marketing support."
Continued to.
You completely and totally missed the point of my statement, "I'm so tired of everyone claiming Apple wields so much power. Where the heck was the power when Amazon got DRM free music long before Apple (re: and not a peep from Apple)? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple to sell it's DRM free music at a higher rate than Amazon? Where the heck was all this power when the Labels forced Apple into variable rate pricing?"
If Apple wields such great power how was Apple forced to accept lesser deals from the Labels, when we know they were fighting for better deals, especially since Job's stated in 2002 that DRM was a failed method of selling songs. And it is well publicized that Apple did no want variable rate pricing.
Oh, I understood your point. It just wasn't a very good one. Apple doesn't hold all the power in their relationship with the labels. The labels, acting in unison, have a lot of power and this is used in their negotiations with Apple. But Apple seems to have enough clout to influence the labels dealings with Amazon.
You delude yourself if you don't think the Labels aren't undercutting Apple @ every step.
They are certainly out for themselves. So is Apple. They are in a partnership. Both will try to get the most out of their relationship. Unless one side is expected to always and only have their partners interests at heart, it's hardly nefarious. Is Apple trying to undercut and attack the labels because they try to get what is best for them?
You failed to mention that Microsoft was threatening to withhold advertising / promotional $ to their customers (Dell, HP, Compac, Acer, IBM, etc.) Apple is not doing this - Apple owns the iTunes store. <the following is sarcasm> Are you suggesting that Apple provide free advertising / promotions for songs on the Amazon on-line store?
MS was threatening to withhold marketing resources from the partners. Apple isn't doing this? Well, then there really is no case. The DoJ should pack up. But if they are doing this...you seem to think it wouldn't be right. or maybe you don't. Not sure.
Your constant harping on the similarities between Apple and Microsoft don't hold up. If anything, a similarity could be made between Microsoft and the Record Labels, if the Record Labels were withholding free promotional material from selected customers, Apple, Amazon, etc. - Oh wait, that is what Amazon is trying to get the Record Labels to do, harm Apple in favor of Amazon = Microsoft harm Dell in favor of HP if they promote Netscape.
You are confusing Amazon with the labels. Amazon has no clout. At best they are a tool used by the labels. As for the labels, yes, they should be investigated and investigated before Apple. Their practices are as bad or worse.
I would agree with everything but the bit about Amazon being a "small player". They're a retail giant, and, if memory serves, one of the top 3 music retailers in the US.
They are a retailing giant and hey are 3rd in the total music sales category with 12% compared to Apple's 28%. But in downloaded music sales, Apple is at ~70% and Amazon, I think, it around 8%, which I think makes them second. Being that distant a 2nd place makes them a small player, in download music sales. Isn't the Zune the #2 PMP and MS a huge company? They are still a small player in the PMP market.
Perhaps looking at only the downloaded music sales is too narrow in scope. But, as it is a large market by itself and is the only growing segment (thanks to Apple) of the music sales market as a whole, it seems appropriate.
I'd buy an iPad right now if Apple allowed us to sideload apps without going through the app store. But as long as it's a walled garden, I feel like it'll never truly be mine. It'd be nice if they were mandated to allow side loading. 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?
This CRAZY, radical, maybe even communist like thinking is what ignited the Jailbreak community. My advice... search them out... they are providing an environment that MANY people think Apple should be and are upset enough to make it happen anyway with or without Apples blessing.
If Apple isn't allowed to dictate what type of programing development tools run on its closed product, such a decision from the DoJ could be used as precedence for other systems, such as those offered by Nintendo, Sony and MS.
As for the blockade on hiring employees amongst the big three tech companies, I would be curious to see what the investigation finds. I recall seeing numerous employee contracts drafted, when I worked at a law firm, with terms stating that after a person leaves a company, they will not work for another company in the same industry for a set period of time. There was a lengthy list of the penalties that would incur should someone break the contract and go to work for another company before the time had expired. So once again, another far sweeping precedence could be set by the DoJ depending on what the outcome is.
I don't expect this probe to move fast as I think the DoJ will take its time and be careful with how they present their final conclusion, as the results could effect a great deal of businesses.
... Perhaps looking at only the downloaded music sales is too narrow in scope. But, as it is a large market by itself and is the only growing segment (thanks to Apple) of the music sales market as a whole, it seems appropriate.
Yes, it's a completely artificial segmentation. Amazon wields huge power in retail, across the board.