Apple Facing New Antitrust Investigation 241
mantis2009 writes "After recent complaints of anti-competitive behavior, the US Department of Justice has opened an inquiry into Apple's business practices for selling music. Investigators have specifically asked whether Apple colluded with record labels to thwart Amazon.com's music download store, according to the ever-present anonymous 'people briefed on the situation.' Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks." So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.
Maybe (Score:2, Informative)
To give an idea of the scale of that achievement, Apple's share price has climbed about 560% in the past five years. Microsoft's is up 4%. Sure, market cap isn't a hugely useful measure (beyond bragging rights) of the value a company brings, but the trend is an interesting one, at least for Apple shareholders
Simon.
Re: (Score:2)
As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...) Do I think Apple really is a monopoly? No. But I never thought Microsoft was a monopoly, either.
Apple fans should hope Apple has better attorneys than Microsoft had when dealing with the DoJ. If Apple doesn't play ball
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
it will become a hamstrung corporate slushy, just like Microsoft did.
All the DOJ did was say "yep MS, you are a monopoly", the damage was already done. Microsoft managed to squash Netscape, BeOS, and all of their established competitors from the '90s.
Other than making MS more subtle in their EEE tactics, the ruling didn't do too much. Microsoft managed to come out on top with the DOJ hearings, yeah they got a stern talking to and some bad PR, but look at post-hearing MS, it was doing remarkably well and not losing marketshare till the disaster of Vista.
Apple has a lot more to fear than MS did. Apple doesn't supply the OS for most of the government's computers, MS does.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally hundreds of third party solutions to the 'sealed' battery in your iWhatever.
All of them void the warranty.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
A good prosecutor could have a field day with Apple's marketing tactics in music, books, hardware and software sales. Probably the app store, too. No doubt they are smart enough to settle, but who knows what DoJ might demand. If they decide to go to court, anything can happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...)
The word you're looking for is 'proprietary' not 'monopoly'. You'll notice in the FS that it's about putting a competitor out of business as opposed to keeping people on their platform, which is what you just described.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with Apple requiring their hardware in order to run their software (there are so many other competing companies who don't, so there's no lock-in), or their software to run their iPads, iPhones, etc. (again, this describes any company who produces hardware that interfaces with another system; they're called drivers). Any computer you buy is loaded with software put on there by the vendor, so again, not an issue; at least the stuff Apple gives you has a good reputation and isn't cripple
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products,"
I see a hint of hypocrisy here. You complain that they are to powerful, but you support them with your hard earned cash money. If they are bad, why do you give them money?
BTW - I've taught my kid properly. He bought a USED iPod, and immediately jailbroke the damned thing. He uses it as he wishes. He sent no money to Apple, and he got exactly what he wanted, and uses it in exactly the way he wishes. At this point in time, I believe he is aiming at an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From the launch of Windows 95 till the success of the iPod and OS X in 2003, Apple was a joke. No one would have been advised to invest in it.
Yeah, the iPod and OS X and switching to x86 and iTunes have made Apple fashionable again, but for a while in the mid '90s, Apple was worthless. It lacked a decent OS, Windows was gaining, etc.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds of Forest Gump when Forest says he invested in a "fruit" company that turns out to be Apple. If people invested their money into Apple right after that movie came out, they'd be living like Gump themselves right now.
It's just mind-blowing what you could do if you had 20 years of hindsight 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Sign up for an 40+ singles cruise?
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT [google.com] (219.18B) by having a market cap [google.com] of 222.07B.
That also gives Apple the second largest market cap period, behind only Exxon Mobil (278.64B). Rather incredible, since Apple only nudged into the top five last quarter and the top ten the quarter before that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The reason wasn't altruism, either. Microsoft did it to settle a court-case (along with granting Apple access to a broad base of MS patents) because they were about to be taken to the cleaners by Apple. MS also had to promise to keep developing MS Office for 5 years.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, you do have, don't you ? Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit either. If you have billions in the bank, 150 million isn't a huge amount of money. So, in small, simple words:
... which somewhat refutes your claim to have "won" the argument in any meaningful way.
Microsoft did not bail out Apple
As for "winning" by using your nice open-source operating system, look, you're barking
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny that, because their share price wasn't doing so well when Microsoft pumped money into Apple to keep them solvent just a few years ago.
Yeah, $150 Million, when Apple only had $1.2 in cash. What a float. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html [cnet.com]
Bully? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when is stopping companies from breaking the law bullying?
Re:Bully? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the country was run by corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not, its more like when the kid who finally stands up to the bully and punches him in the face gets called to the principal's office for fighting in school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Engaging in anti-competitive practices is completely justified by the improvements in shininess of the next toy such a practice would bring if Apple's doing it.
Bully Pulpit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension man:
So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.
DoJ is the "bully" that the GP is referring to.
To the GP:
It's bully pulpit, i.e. that thing speakers stand in front of when they speak. A bully pulpit means you get to speak (usually you're preaching at someone), for no other reason than you said so, and apparently you're bigger (or are more important) than anybody else.
Generally, when you have a bully pulpit, you verbally beat the shit out of someone (rake them against the coals, put their feet to the fire, whatever metaphor you
I don't understand this FTA (Score:3, Funny)
The Justice Department has also reportedly been investigating the hiring practices at Apple and other top technology companies, including Intel, I.B.M. and Google, asking whether the companies have improperly agreed to avoid hiring each other’s employees.
I would like to see specifically what this investigation is about. I don't see why companies can't make this type of agreement. It sounds like an agreement to respect each others trade secretes by not hiring each others employees.
Re:I don't understand this FTA (Score:4, Insightful)
Or a friendly agreement not to snipe each other's talent, but on the other hand, it makes someone at Apple kind of trapped at Apple, since they might not be able to get a job at the other big corporations who would use them.
Re:I don't understand this FTA (Score:5, Informative)
If I'm unhappy at Apple for some reason I have to stick with them because the other companies won't hire me, not because I'm not qualified but because of my previous employer.
If this was Burger King don't hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?
Re: (Score:2)
If this was Burger King not hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?
I guess lack of coffee today has made me oblivious to blindingly obvious typos in my posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand this FTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on there, pardner. The trade secrets belong to the company, but the talent belongs to the employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the same type of agreement would be completely acceptable.
You know the best way to keep your employees?
Pay them what they are worth, and treat them like human beings.
Apple has a bad habit of doing neither for some employees (most companies do actually), which is why they create these agreements. It saves the corporations money, while completely screwing their employees.
Why is that OK? Ever? You can have an NDA, and if the employee breaks it after they go to another company (you can work somewhere else and still keep an NDA), you can sue them into bankruptcy. T
Re: (Score:2)
Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.
Well, you could always go work for Microsoft...
Re: (Score:2)
According to the FTA, you won't get hired at Google, IBM, et al., if you currently work at Apple. The reverse is true. This may be illegal, but the companies' motivation is obviously something akin to a gentlemen's agreement not to poach from each other. It's ugly, but it's also still not the same as saying that working at Apple prevents you from quitting and then applying for a job somewhere else.
Re:I don't understand this FTA (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, this is retarded. Agreements like this amount to indentured servitude for the employees. In my experience, moving from one company to another was the surest way to boost my pay. Had I stayed with the same company for a decade, my merit rises would merely beat inflation. I would also be worth a lot less to a prospective employer due to not having a varied background.
I would like not only these pacts to be outlawed, but non-competes as well. For trade secrets, there's the court of law where trade secret disputes can be adjudicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are only a few worthwhile companies which build operating systems, for instance. Tablets, mobile phone OS's, search engines, ads -- these are just a few highly competitive areas with few big players. If those players strike a pact, you'll have to change your career. This is shitty and unfair.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad. Therefore the regulation of an oligopoly is considered okay. In a oligopsony, similar affects arise from collusion: the buyers of services gain huge price setting power, because they no longer have to out-bid one another.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it damages the ability of individuals to find work.
Keep hating Microsoft though... (Score:2, Insightful)
As i've been ranting about for a while now... It's time to either let Microsoft run its business in the same manner Apple does... or force Apple to deal with the same nonsense all of you impose on Microsoft.
When will we end the hypocrisy? Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
When will we end the hypocrisy? Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.
This is the same logic that got us involved in Iraq, when the big problem was in Afghanistan. If Microsoft were left to its own devices, every computer maker would still be paying for a copy of a Windows license, even on computers that didn't have a copy of Windows on it. Like they already did before DOJ got on them. And yes, they would also be spending those billions in cash to sue Linux software makers for "paten
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you just wrote was the same bullshit nonsense that got us involved in iraq. You did not state any fact. You fear mongered. Congrats... you are your very own argument.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? They used to charge manufacturers for every computer they sold whether or not it had windows, this [wikipedia.org] is a fact [wikipedia.org]. They have already said that Linux infringes on their patents, this [cnn.com] is a fact [crn.com]. Assuming they would continue to charge manufacturers or pursue lawsuits on their "intellectual property" if they weren't restrained in some way isn't FUD, it is logical deduction.
Most people on /. are technical persons, and I wouldn't have to give them these direct links. Most people, including people like myse
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I just despise both?
Re: (Score:2)
See now that is an honest answer. I admire that. I agree.. lets hate them both so that we get what we want out of them... but one day we have to admit "this stuff is pretty good". If it warrants it of course.
Apple right now is far more controlling than MS has EVER BEEN.
Re:Keep hating Microsoft though... (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.
Seriously, evil? We neuter words when we use them casually in a way they are not intended. We rail against politicians and marketers for bandying about certain words in the wrong situation while people here on Slashdot call Apple evil! You may not like them; you may not like their products; you may not like their policies; you may not like their procedures but, let's be serious, the company is not evil.
Gawd. "I don't like them" is not the same thing as "evil!"
I know. I know. I must be new here...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we do.
But then, many people tout the ipad as "truly magical and revolutionary" too. Oh, and "What the device does is extraordinary. It is the best browsing experience you've ever had. ... It's unbelievably great ... way better than a laptop."
Words are used casually in ways they really aren't intended all the time. The trick is in seeing past them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, perhaps, Apple gains dominance in a market to the point that their denial of services or manipulation of terms would be detrimental to the targeted party unless complied with.
Is this some sort of joke? Apple is ALREADY in that position. You just seem to be blinded to anything not having to do with PC OSes.
Re: (Score:2)
So as it stands, Microsoft has to play by different rules. The comparisons are not fair.
Actually, Microsoft has to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though they have a potential monopoly. That's the whole point of anti-trust laws. The monopoly allows them to do things that they could not do with strong competition (as you pointed out). The law forces them to act as though they are simply the biggest competitor in the market, not a monopoly.
Apple, oddly enough, must abide by the same rules. So does everyone who does business in the United States, in fact. Apple has been treadin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep hating Microsoft though... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. Natural monopolies aside, if someone is able to garner enough goodwill and purchasing power to be a monopoly in one area, it's not illegal. The only illegality comes when a monopoly is abused.
Microsoft took their Windows monopoly to put IE on the desktop. There was no need for any third-party browser now, and that desktop monopoly became an web browser monopoly as well, something we all are fighting to this day. IE6 will not die, and IE in general still holds a commanding share of web browser "marketshare".
Apple had a monopoly on selling music on iPods, but Amazon came up and took away that monopoly (because iPods play MP3s). In fact, the closest Apple had was when they were leveraging iPod sales and iTunes - this was why the EU was doing investigations into Apple. Now that Apple has gone DRM free, those concerns disappeared (because Apple sold music that only worked on iPods, thus limiting third party MP3 players from being able to play purchased music).
This case is that Apple is using it's "monopoly" on music sales to limit Amazon's ability to sell music. Namely, by demanding that the music labels cannot give preferential pricing to a third party without offering it on Apple's store as well. If a music label wants to make a track of the week 70 cents on Amazon, it also becomes 70 cents on iTunes.
Which seems bad, but remember that Apple and Amazon are also doing the exact same thing with each other on the ebook market. Apple gave publishers an option they liked better than Amazon's option, so publishers went with Apple, and Amazon relented. Apple's agreement with publishers is they don't give anyone but Apple preferential pricing. Amazon caved and went with the same agency model, and also demands that publishers cannot give preferential pricing to anyone else other than Amazon.
And Amazon's not exactly the innocent party as well - having "dealt with" publishers that refuse to go along with its pricing model by trying to "devalue" books from that publisher, or even worse, not offering to sell the book on its marketplace.
Apple's only real leverage is marketshare, and all it takes is someone to make a better iPod and all that advantage disappears. So Apple may have a monopoly on music sales, but it's far from a certain one and the iPod has to compete with everything else out there. Even music sold on Apple's store isn't locked to an iPod anymore, and modern MP3 players will play it just fine as well (say, Microsoft's Zune).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. Natural monopolies aside, if someone is able to garner enough goodwill and purchasing power to be a monopoly in one area, it's not illegal. The only illegality comes when a monopoly is abused.
To be more specific, it's anti-competitive behavior that is illegal. You do not need to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive, though it definitely helps. Nor having a monopoly on something is anti-competitive in and of itself.
Bah- Music industry sour grapes (Score:3, Insightful)
The Music industry is probably still mad that Apple fought their 0.30 $ increase in prices and has the leverage to do so.
This doesn't seem like a big deal. The barrier to entry in creating an online music store seems pretty low, plus the files are now DRM free and playable on any player. Apple just seems to not want Amazon to get music before it does.
Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place. I think that head start put itunes music store in the position it is in today.
Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place.
This is one of the most fascinating things in recent tech/media history to me. I believe the labels' thinking at the time was that this was a test, and experimental roll-out. Because this new-fangled iPod and iTunes was a Mac-only thing at the time, and Macs had a tiny share of the computer market. So, they'd see if it worked. If it failed, no big deal, it's only a few Mac users. But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful and Apple made the unprecedented move of releasing iTunes for Windows and adding USB support (early models were Firewire-only).
Basically, what the labels thought was a minor experiment turned into the future of their industry.
Re: (Score:2)
But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful...
yes everybody's surprise. To this day I don't understand how the ipod/itunes bonanza occurred, given the prevalence of mp3s and availability of generic portable mp3 players. Every USB stick can double as a portable music library FFS!
Just goes to show that a "chic" product and clever marketing campaigns will always win out over practicality and common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.
Only marginally less shocking than the news of guys behind Bing getting the MSN portal to use their search service.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.
How would Jobs being a Disney board member persuade music publishers? That doesn't make any sense, especially as Jobs was not a Disney board member at the time.
Also, you forget that the music labels were (and still are) deathly afraid of online digital distribution. To them moving beyond physical discs was seen as a huge risk. To even be attempted, it had to be guaranteed to be extremely locked-down and restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs was not a Disney boardmember until 2006. Apple started the iTunes Music Store in 2003.
Nice try.
Go after them for the crap they did to book sales (Score:3, Interesting)
because they cut us out and favored the publishers.
As for their music policy, I bet the arguments over only a 30 cent spike were not as heated as many suspect, frankly I would not doubt Apple welcomed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Cartel (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh, investigating Apple for leveraging dominance against the RIAA, A cartel convicted of antitrust abuses several times? How about dealing with them effectively first?
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.
Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks.
Re:Cartel (Score:5, Insightful)
They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.
Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks.
Which is great and all, except Amazon is already being charged differentially less than Apple in music royalties by the RIAA as a way of intentionally decreasing Apple's market share so they have less influence compared to the RIAA. Amazon is a stalking horse as much as a competitor here.
Bad headline - not antitrust (Score:2)
What, do the copy editors come from the Weekly World News now? Even fark has better, more accurate headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you have that almost entirely wrong.
Collusion and other anticompetitive behaviors are exactly what is meant when the "antitrust" investigators get involved.
Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to how you've misread the title.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a precursor to an antitrust investigation. The complaint is definitely antitrust. Unless you don't understand what "antitrust" means.
Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's (Score:2)
Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well.
As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well. As it they get bigger then[sic] M$ they they may be forced to.
Apple might be forced to separate their desktop OS and desktop computer businesses, but not until they have dominance in one of those markets, we're talking 70% or so as a general guideline. It's unlikely they will ever reach such levels.
Re:Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well. As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.
That's a very strange logic, because if Apple licensed the Mac OS to generic hardware manufacturers, that would put them at greater risk of becoming an actual monopoly, because it would increase other companies' dependence on Apple.
If you could easily (and more importantly, officially) run Mac OS on cheap generic hardware, Windows might actually face a significant decline in marketshare, putting Apple in the same position that got Microsoft slapped with anti-trust suits.
Seems like a strange way to fight a supposed monopolist, by making it more monopoly-like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:apple app store lock in and it's censorship is (Score:2)
apple app store lock in and it's censorship is there now!
Firstly, try to learn some English so you can write coherent sentences. Secondly, yes, the Apple "app store" censors and filters applications that Apple sells to users of Apple products. What's illegal about that? Wal-Mart isn't obligated to sell any particular brand of products. Any retail store can choose what they sell and what they don't. Why should the app store be any different?
Go to hell, DoJ (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's all there is to the accusation, then Apple deserve kudos - in this one isolated instance - for forcing wider access to the works. Exclusive is the antithetis of the purpose of copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, exclusive is EXACTLY what copyrights are about, you should look up the definition sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just from a quick google search on itunes music market share:
According to Wikipedia, as of 2006 Stevie said iTunes had 88% of the market for downloadable music
According to Cnet, that percentage was 70% in 2009.
Okay so Apple appears to have market dominance in downloadable music. Confirm monopoly stamp.
Now, from the article:
"But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released."
So... Amazon got first and only dibs to specific songs, thus restricting competition, and Apple is using monopoly power to tell music distributors not to do that?
*brain explodes*
I'm sure I'm going to sniff some RIAA lobbiest involvement in this once I reassemble my head.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So... Amazon got first and only dibs to specific songs, thus restricting competition, and Apple is using monopoly power to tell music distributors not to do that?
Yeah. Since Amazon doesn't hold a controlling share of the digital music market, they're free to do that. Apple isn't.
Kinda how Apple is able to shove their browser and video player down your throat when you install their music player, but Microsoft can't bundle IE with Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Since Amazon doesn't hold a controlling share of the digital music market, they're free to do that. Apple isn't.
Apple doesn't have a "controlling share" in the digital music market, they only have about 25%. Amazon has quite a large share itself, both from music downloads and CDs (you know what the D in CD stands for? It doesn't stand for digital, but the music on a CD _is_ digital). But the OP expressed himself badly: It is not Amazon who is restricting competition, it is whoever sells music to Amazon at a price that is so low they can sell music for less than Apple has to pay for it, and still make a profit. And Ap
Re: (Score:2)
So... Amazon got first and only dibs to specific songs, thus restricting competition, and Apple is using monopoly power to tell music distributors not to do that?
No. Amazon wanted the ability to have some songs from the music companies one day before everyone else. The music companies agreed. Apple came along and said, "If you do, we won't sell that song at all."
Fucking get it right.... (Score:3, Informative)
It's an inquiry, NOT an investigation. An inquiry may or may not lead to an investigation.
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Soooo...
Amazon was trying to work a deal where it got to sell mp3s earlier than Apple? Isn't that anti-competitive too?
Now Apple is being investigated for being anti-competitive to a competitors anti-competitiveness.
Isn't that just competition?
Re: (Score:2)
As they say on Slashdot, "but X is not a monopoly like Y! they play by different rules!". Normally, X=Apple and Y=Microsoft; in this particular case, X=Amazon and Y=Apple.
Simply put, the claim is that Apple has a monopoly, and therefore their influence on the market is anti-competitive, while Amazon isn't, so they are in the clear. Whether the logic is sound or not, it should be applied consistently.
Of course, the matter of Apple being a monopoly in the first place is a separate one. But, apparently, they h
Riiiiight! (Score:3, Insightful)
So now its uncompetitive for Apple to complain about other companies trying to gain an unfair advantage. Amazon's program gave Amazon a monopoly since they would be the only ones selling the tracks early. I can only imagine what a sh*t storm Amazon would throw if Borders was able to sell select books a week before them or anyone else. Personally I feel all retail exclusivity agreements should be illegal. Including Cell phones and album/tracks. The only stuff that should be "available only at wal-mart" is bad taste and bad judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.
You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."
And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to the contrary, there are many thousands if you look beyond the cheap plasticized music thrown at you in marketing and over-hype).
Fuck the hell off. You can easily buy full albums from iTunes. And contrary to your belief, there are plenty of artists who you wouldn't want to buy the full album, but might like to buy just a track or two. I thought consumer choice was good?
How is Apple stopping artists from releasing good, coherent albums?
This in turn ultimately means that proper musicians who *DO* have the capability of putting together albums that are good from start to finish will be forced out of making music because it will be much cheaper for record companies to catapult some talentless moistened bint to the public's attention, despite her only skill being the ability to wiggle her backside at a video camera.
Sounds more like you are describing the 1990s MTV music video scene, when people had less choice in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.
No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.
Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM. It had nothing to do with public outcry.
Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip them myself to whatever format I want - and have an automatic backup in a nice plastic case I can store on a shelf.
Good for you. You have consumer choice, yay! This goes directly against your argument that somehow Ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see. So Amazon and much smaller download sites were able to avoid selling DRM music in the first place but *BIG BAD APPLE* was coerced...
Get your facts straight. Amazon wasn't selling MP3s until September 2007. The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. Apple started selling DRM-free tracks in April 2007.
As for the "much smaller download sites," how many of them were selling tracks from the major labels DRM-free? Oh, that's right, none of them were.
But Amazon started out selling non-DRM music when they started with zero market share. Sorry, your explanation doesn't wash.
Except they only did it after Apple's appeal to the music industry to remove DRM.
I didn't say "destroyed", I said "destroying"...
Yet you have no evidence for this. Not only do you have no evidence, but no rational argument for it.
But I've heard individual Pink Floyd, Beatles and Bowie songs played on the radio also.
Which makes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)