Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
Not even remotely true. No retailer, ever, has been forced to sell products they don't wish to sell. Does Coach sell Michael Kors bags in their stores? Did Sony stores sell Samsung TVs? Do Bose stores sell Air Pods? Do Nike stores sell Adidas? I could go on all day. Apple elects to sell complementary products. When they become direct competitors, there is absolutely no obligation to continue selling those products.
The fact is, the third party items are always cheaper online. I've overheard Apple store employees dozens of times let customers know that. And more and more customers can shop on their phone. Since it's not a good deal, not sure they should be there at all. When Sony had a store (do they still?) I don't remember a selection of Samsung devices. And of course Apple stores don't offer the best price on Apple hardware anyway. If you just want the best price, you shop online or check out a retailer. The Apple store has a better shopping experience most of the time and I feel like that's why you would shop at one.
They even still sell Logitech 3rd party accessories that compete with their own. Just not speakers, cuz new devices coming and they want them to succeed. At all costs apparently.
And there's nothing wrong with that. They are not going to sink just because they are not selling 3rd party speakers and headphones. How much money does Apple seriously make on those? The "at all costs" you refer to does not affect the bottom line in any significant manner.
Having a dedicated space for its new range is a good move.
Again, they can decide what they want to sell at their stores. They aren't stopping anyone from buying 3rd party speakers and headphones from other places.
Please don't parse my quote and remove the entire context. No one said or implied anything was wrong with what they did. My quote is about the flawed logic that people are using in an attempt to justify Apple's decision. This is nothing like Sonos not selling Bose in their store or Sony not selling Samsung in theirs. Those were things that never occurred. Comparing them to what Apple did (sell 3rd party products that compete with their own) and still does makes no sense at all.
The "at all cost" I referred to had nothing to do with the bottom line. It referred to the optics of removing competing products.
Having dedicated space for a new range of products isn't a good move. It isn't a move at all. It standard operating procedure. It's what they've always done for every new product they've introduced. What is new/different/unique/rare is the removal of competing products.
What do you expect them to do if they are going to give a prominent position to a new/expanded line of products in a not unlimited amount of space; remove one of their other lines of products just to keep the competition in?
The obvious objection to my logic there is of course that a webstore could be viewed as having an "unlimited amount of space", but reality isn't always that simple; there are huge deals behind everything, and there are lots of reasons why one might want to match what's available in the physical and the online stores.
It's a restructuring, and some products from some third parties no longer fit; why is that making some people think of conspiracies and evilness and anti-competitiveness etc…?
I don't care what they do to give prominent position to new products. They can do what they want. It's their storefronts. That's irrelevant to the point I was making.
You're right. Online removal is the obvious -and valid- objection to your logic. Your matching logic doesn't work either. Apple's online store inventory has never matched their physical stores and won't after the removal. Chiefly because their physical stores inventories don't all match each other. Also there are items that don't make sense taking up valuable retail space. Matching inventory is not a reason.
It's obviously not a restructuring and the products obviously still fit. Bose and Sonos just recently upgraded to AirPlay 2. People think of conspiracies because the only products being removed happen to, not so coincidentally, compete with Apple's rumored upcoming products.
I think everyone sees this for what it is: Apple trying to ensure their new products have an unencumbered chance at success. It's their right to do so. If there's blowback, they'll deal with it. I also think people are trying to make excuses for it because they feel their favorite company is doing something they can't quite reconcile internally.
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
Not even remotely true. No retailer, ever, has been forced to sell products they don't wish to sell. Does Coach sell Michael Kors bags in their stores? Did Sony stores sell Samsung TVs? Do Bose stores sell Air Pods? Do Nike stores sell Adidas? I could go on all day. Apple elects to sell complementary products. When they become direct competitors, there is absolutely no obligation to continue selling those products.
Did Apple stop selling ALL competitor products, or was this rule applied in an inconsistent, possibly even (seen as) capricious, manner against just a few products? That would be the issue. Especially when there is a fight brewing regarding antitrust issues with Big Tech. Not just in Congress, but at the DoJ/FTC, as well as in the EU.
Btw, there is a larger issue here: I can't believe that Apple is concerned about a couple of minor competitors when it has the dominant product and share of the market in this space. Unless, of course, Bose and Logitech are not minor competitors. If the latter, that would be news.
The fact is, the third party items are always cheaper online. I've overheard Apple store employees dozens of times let customers know that. And more and more customers can shop on their phone. Since it's not a good deal, not sure they should be there at all. When Sony had a store (do they still?) I don't remember a selection of Samsung devices. And of course Apple stores don't offer the best price on Apple hardware anyway. If you just want the best price, you shop online or check out a retailer. The Apple store has a better shopping experience most of the time and I feel like that's why you would shop at one.
They even still sell Logitech 3rd party accessories that compete with their own. Just not speakers, cuz new devices coming and they want them to succeed. At all costs apparently.
And there's nothing wrong with that. They are not going to sink just because they are not selling 3rd party speakers and headphones. How much money does Apple seriously make on those? The "at all costs" you refer to does not affect the bottom line in any significant manner.
Having a dedicated space for its new range is a good move.
Again, they can decide what they want to sell at their stores. They aren't stopping anyone from buying 3rd party speakers and headphones from other places.
Please don't parse my quote and remove the entire context. No one said or implied anything was wrong with what they did. My quote is about the flawed logic that people are using in an attempt to justify Apple's decision. This is nothing like Sonos not selling Bose in their store or Sony not selling Samsung in theirs. Those were things that never occurred. Comparing them to what Apple did (sell 3rd party products that compete with their own) and still does makes no sense at all.
The "at all cost" I referred to had nothing to do with the bottom line. It referred to the optics of removing competing products.
Having dedicated space for a new range of products isn't a good move. It isn't a move at all. It standard operating procedure. It's what they've always done for every new product they've introduced. What is new/different/unique/rare is the removal of competing products.
What do you expect them to do if they are going to give a prominent position to a new/expanded line of products in a not unlimited amount of space; remove one of their other lines of products just to keep the competition in?
The obvious objection to my logic there is of course that a webstore could be viewed as having an "unlimited amount of space", but reality isn't always that simple; there are huge deals behind everything, and there are lots of reasons why one might want to match what's available in the physical and the online stores.
It's a restructuring, and some products from some third parties no longer fit; why is that making some people think of conspiracies and evilness and anti-competitiveness etc…?
I don't care what they do to give prominent position to new products. They can do what they want. It's their storefronts. That's irrelevant to the point I was making.
You're right. Online removal is the obvious -and valid- objection to your logic. Your matching logic doesn't work either. Apple's online store inventory has never matched their physical stores and won't after the removal. Chiefly because their physical stores inventories don't all match each other. Also there are items that don't make sense taking up valuable retail space. Matching inventory is not a reason.
It's obviously not a restructuring and the products obviously still fit. Bose and Sonos just recently upgraded to AirPlay 2. People think of conspiracies because the only products being removed happen to, not so coincidentally, compete with Apple's rumored upcoming products.
I think everyone sees this for what it is: Apple trying to ensure their new products have an unencumbered chance at success. It's their right to do so. If there's blowback, they'll deal with it. I also think people are trying to make excuses for it because they feel their favorite company is doing something they can't quite reconcile internally.
You are so exaggerating your own ability to know what people are thinking, and how the world functions.
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
Not even remotely true. No retailer, ever, has been forced to sell products they don't wish to sell. Does Coach sell Michael Kors bags in their stores? Did Sony stores sell Samsung TVs? Do Bose stores sell Air Pods? Do Nike stores sell Adidas? I could go on all day. Apple elects to sell complementary products. When they become direct competitors, there is absolutely no obligation to continue selling those products.
Btw, there is a larger issue here: I can't believe that Apple is concerned about a couple of minor competitors when it has the dominant product and share of the market in this space. Unless, of course, Bose and Logitech are not minor competitors. If the latter, that would be news.
Well it would seem they are worried that their products can't stand on their own vs the competition, and that advertising the competitor's products in-store would provide an all too easy unfavourable comparison toward the Apple products. If the Apple product is so good, then even in-store competition wouldn't matter. If you were in the market for smart speakers and didn't really care about sound quality but the answers given by the assistant were important, Siri would come out last every time. So if Apple had Google Home and Amazon Dot or whatever in the stores for comparison with the HomePod, the HP would lose every time for people who don't care about sound quality. Removing the competition makes direct comparison more difficult when your own product's merits are shaky.
OTOH it might be that the non-Apple audio gear barely sells. I mean why would it - it's not exclusive to Apple, and Apple never offers money off promotions in their stores, so why get a third party product that costs more in the Apple Store? That doesn't apply with Apple's own products as there's more choice and the whole "Apple experience" of buying in an Apple Store.
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
I would be very interested in hearing you justify that position.
We shouldn't even have validated the ridiculous comment with responses.
My sentiments exactly. Still, it’s hilarious to see all these people get all worked up over it. But that’s the whole point of a troll. He just dropped that little nugget and disappeared, lol.
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
Your point is reasonable, but you're twisting the original post to pretend that it was making the same point. "Opening itself for an antitrust case" is very different from "the optics of this won't help Apple in the court of public opinion and the halls of Congress (and other regulators)."
Having said that, I have no doubt that this move was discussed at the highest levels at Apple in the context of their anti-trust challenges. Perhaps the winning argument was "if we change our behavior because we're worried about anti-trust, isn't that tacitly admitting that we are close to the 'illegal monopoly' line in some market?" Or "people whining about this will ultimately lower the credibility of the anti-truster in general, so let them."
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
I would be very interested in hearing you justify that position.
We shouldn't even have validated the ridiculous comment with responses.
My sentiments exactly. Still, it’s hilarious to see all these people get all worked up over it. But that’s the whole point of a troll. He just dropped that little nugget and disappeared, lol.
"Troll"? What a ridiculous, childish post. Call someone names instead of engaging. Way to go...
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
I would be very interested in hearing you justify that position.
We shouldn't even have validated the ridiculous comment with responses.
My sentiments exactly. Still, it’s hilarious to see all these people get all worked up over it. But that’s the whole point of a troll. He just dropped that little nugget and disappeared, lol.
"Troll"? What a ridiculous, childish post. Call someone names instead of engaging. Way to go...
Apparently anyone here who isn't 100% worshiping the Temple of Apple is a troll. Question something? Troll. Report you're having a problem with something Apple? Troll. Question Apple's motives? Troll.
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
Not even remotely true. No retailer, ever, has been forced to sell products they don't wish to sell. Does Coach sell Michael Kors bags in their stores? Did Sony stores sell Samsung TVs? Do Bose stores sell Air Pods? Do Nike stores sell Adidas? I could go on all day. Apple elects to sell complementary products. When they become direct competitors, there is absolutely no obligation to continue selling those products.
Btw, there is a larger issue here: I can't believe that Apple is concerned about a couple of minor competitors when it has the dominant product and share of the market in this space. Unless, of course, Bose and Logitech are not minor competitors. If the latter, that would be news.
Well it would seem they are worried that their products can't stand on their own vs the competition, and that advertising the competitor's products in-store would provide an all too easy unfavourable comparison toward the Apple products. If the Apple product is so good, then even in-store competition wouldn't matter. If you were in the market for smart speakers and didn't really care about sound quality but the answers given by the assistant were important, Siri would come out last every time. So if Apple had Google Home and Amazon Dot or whatever in the stores for comparison with the HomePod, the HP would lose every time for people who don't care about sound quality. Removing the competition makes direct comparison more difficult when your own product's merits are shaky.
OTOH it might be that the non-Apple audio gear barely sells. I mean why would it - it's not exclusive to Apple, and Apple never offers money off promotions in their stores, so why get a third party product that costs more in the Apple Store? That doesn't apply with Apple's own products as there's more choice and the whole "Apple experience" of buying in an Apple Store.
And what, exactly, is this “Apple experience” that you refer to? Because, my experience is that it’s nothing short of a total pain in the ass whenever I HAVE to visit an Apple Store. With 3 stores within a 30 minute drive, and 5 within a 90 minute drive, they are all exactly the same. Anyone who needed to make an actual purchase or get actual support had to wade through a thousand people with no intention of doing either. And it’s even worse now, with the pandemic protocols in place. I think this “experience” you’re talking about is a myth that is leveraged by Apple and hasn’t really existed for 10-12 years. I’d rather purchase my Apple gear from Best Buy or Amazon these days. Am I the only one?
Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
I don't see how Apple not selling any products other than Apple ones in its stores is a problem... The antitrust case is more of an App store one, Apple is not dominant in any of its hardware markets.
The fact is, the third party items are always cheaper online. I've overheard Apple store employees dozens of times let customers know that. And more and more customers can shop on their phone. Since it's not a good deal, not sure they should be there at all. When Sony had a store (do they still?) I don't remember a selection of Samsung devices. And of course Apple stores don't offer the best price on Apple hardware anyway. If you just want the best price, you shop online or check out a retailer. The Apple store has a better shopping experience most of the time and I feel like that's why you would shop at one.
They even still sell Logitech 3rd party accessories that compete with their own. Just not speakers, cuz new devices coming and they want them to succeed. At all costs apparently.
And there's nothing wrong with that. They are not going to sink just because they are not selling 3rd party speakers and headphones. How much money does Apple seriously make on those? The "at all costs" you refer to does not affect the bottom line in any significant manner.
Having a dedicated space for its new range is a good move.
Again, they can decide what they want to sell at their stores. They aren't stopping anyone from buying 3rd party speakers and headphones from other places.
Please don't parse my quote and remove the entire context. No one said or implied anything was wrong with what they did. My quote is about the flawed logic that people are using in an attempt to justify Apple's decision. This is nothing like Sonos not selling Bose in their store or Sony not selling Samsung in theirs. Those were things that never occurred. Comparing them to what Apple did (sell 3rd party products that compete with their own) and still does makes no sense at all.
The "at all cost" I referred to had nothing to do with the bottom line. It referred to the optics of removing competing products.
Having dedicated space for a new range of products isn't a good move. It isn't a move at all. It standard operating procedure. It's what they've always done for every new product they've introduced. What is new/different/unique/rare is the removal of competing products.
What do you expect them to do if they are going to give a prominent position to a new/expanded line of products in a not unlimited amount of space; remove one of their other lines of products just to keep the competition in?
The obvious objection to my logic there is of course that a webstore could be viewed as having an "unlimited amount of space", but reality isn't always that simple; there are huge deals behind everything, and there are lots of reasons why one might want to match what's available in the physical and the online stores.
It's a restructuring, and some products from some third parties no longer fit; why is that making some people think of conspiracies and evilness and anti-competitiveness etc…?
I don't care what they do to give prominent position to new products. They can do what they want. It's their storefronts. That's irrelevant to the point I was making.
You're right. Online removal is the obvious -and valid- objection to your logic. Your matching logic doesn't work either. Apple's online store inventory has never matched their physical stores and won't after the removal. Chiefly because their physical stores inventories don't all match each other. Also there are items that don't make sense taking up valuable retail space. Matching inventory is not a reason.
It's obviously not a restructuring and the products obviously still fit. Bose and Sonos just recently upgraded to AirPlay 2. People think of conspiracies because the only products being removed happen to, not so coincidentally, compete with Apple's rumored upcoming products.
I think everyone sees this for what it is: Apple trying to ensure their new products have an unencumbered chance at success. It's their right to do so. If there's blowback, they'll deal with it. I also think people are trying to make excuses for it because they feel their favorite company is doing something they can't quite reconcile internally.
You are so exaggerating your own ability to know what people are thinking, and how the world functions.
I rendered my opinion. If you disagree with it, fine. Proffer a counter argument. If all you can do is resort to ad hominem then let's disengage at this point.
So the reality is that all 3rd party manufacturers pay a hefty premium to sell their wares in an Apple store or online. They all have start and end dates and sometimes they renew, sometimes they don’t. Just like you see at Costco.
The other strange thing is sometimes you will see 3rd party items on Apple’s online store, that is also in the store, but never put out on display. I asked the employees about it and they thought it was because the 3rd party company didn’t want to pay that extra money to be out on the floor.
Add how crappy this year has been for retail due to COVID-19 and it’s not hard to fathom that some companies don’t want to lose more money by trying to sell in the Apple store when they don’t sell much of them there anyway.
Comments
Ridiculous.
We shouldn't even have validated the ridiculous comment with responses.
Not even remotely true. No retailer, ever, has been forced to sell products they don't wish to sell. Does Coach sell Michael Kors bags in their stores? Did Sony stores sell Samsung TVs? Do Bose stores sell Air Pods? Do Nike stores sell Adidas? I could go on all day. Apple elects to sell complementary products. When they become direct competitors, there is absolutely no obligation to continue selling those products.
You're right. Online removal is the obvious -and valid- objection to your logic. Your matching logic doesn't work either. Apple's online store inventory has never matched their physical stores and won't after the removal. Chiefly because their physical stores inventories don't all match each other. Also there are items that don't make sense taking up valuable retail space. Matching inventory is not a reason.
It's obviously not a restructuring and the products obviously still fit. Bose and Sonos just recently upgraded to AirPlay 2. People think of conspiracies because the only products being removed happen to, not so coincidentally, compete with Apple's rumored upcoming products.
I think everyone sees this for what it is: Apple trying to ensure their new products have an unencumbered chance at success. It's their right to do so. If there's blowback, they'll deal with it.
I also think people are trying to make excuses for it because they feel their favorite company is doing something they can't quite reconcile internally.
Btw, there is a larger issue here: I can't believe that Apple is concerned about a couple of minor competitors when it has the dominant product and share of the market in this space. Unless, of course, Bose and Logitech are not minor competitors. If the latter, that would be news.
OTOH it might be that the non-Apple audio gear barely sells. I mean why would it - it's not exclusive to Apple, and Apple never offers money off promotions in their stores, so why get a third party product that costs more in the Apple Store? That doesn't apply with Apple's own products as there's more choice and the whole "Apple experience" of buying in an Apple Store.
Having said that, I have no doubt that this move was discussed at the highest levels at Apple in the context of their anti-trust challenges. Perhaps the winning argument was "if we change our behavior because we're worried about anti-trust, isn't that tacitly admitting that we are close to the 'illegal monopoly' line in some market?" Or "people whining about this will ultimately lower the credibility of the anti-truster in general, so let them."
Was Apple selling the Sonos Arc bars at its stores?
The antitrust case is more of an App store one, Apple is not dominant in any of its hardware markets.
Good to know.