Apple threatened to withdraw support for certain releases unless the labels stopped participating in Amazon's "daily deals." (Or, at least, that seems to be the allegation).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Again Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Digital Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple threatened to withdraw support for certain releases unless the labels stopped participating in Amazon's "daily deals." (Or, at least, that seems to be the allegation).
There are a few different ways to look at this situation.
Apparently (at least according to Billboard “sources”), iTunes and Amazon pay the same wholesale price for music.
At the beginning of the Daily Deal, Amazon was just accepting a loss on those discounted albums to drive traffic and sales (keep in mind Amazon sells a lot more on their Web site than just music) similar to their Gold Deals on electronics, etc.
However, Amazon then began negotiating with labels to get them to put marketing dollars into the Daily Deal by announcing the deal through Twitter, posting banner ads, etc and even offering them a day before release exclusivity period.
Once that happened, Apple through a fit because Apple itself spends marketing dollars promoting each label’s content for free on their iTunes Store front door, affiliate links, New Music podcast, etc.
Apple is basically saying if a record label is going to put marketing dollars into propping up their competitor, they’re not going to put their own marketing dollars into promoting that label’s artist or album but the album/song will still be in their store.
It’s not exactly about wholesale pricing as much as it is invisible (and hard to quantify) marketing dollars.
Apple could easily match Amazon’s Daily Deal pricing, but since they’re a hardware company and make relatively little money on the store itself, it wouldn’t do anything for them. It’s not like people shopping for the latest Lady Gaga album are going to purchase a new iPod at the same time.
Unlike Amazon, where click-through and traffic drives their business.
Apparently (at least according to Billboard “sources”), iTunes and Amazon pay the same wholesale price for music.
At the beginning of the Daily Deal, Amazon was just accepting a loss on those discounted albums to drive traffic and sales (keep in mind Amazon sells a lot more on their Web site than just music) similar to their Gold Deals on electronics, etc.
However, Amazon then began negotiating with labels to get them to put marketing dollars into the Daily Deal by announcing the deal through Twitter, posting banner ads, etc and even offering them a day before release exclusivity period.
Once that happened, Apple through a fit because Apple itself spends marketing dollars promoting each label’s content for free on their iTunes Store front door, affiliate links, New Music podcast, etc.
Apple is basically saying if a record label is going to put marketing dollars into propping up their competitor, they’re not going to put their own marketing dollars into promoting that label’s artist or album but the album/song will still be in their store.
It’s not exactly about wholesale pricing as much as it is invisible (and hard to quantify) marketing dollars.
Apple could easily match Amazon’s Daily Deal pricing, but since they’re a hardware company and make relatively little money on the store itself, it wouldn’t do anything for them. It’s not like people shopping for the latest Lady Gaga album are going to purchase a new iPod at the same time.
Unlike Amazon, where click-through and traffic drives their business.
*ba-DUM tsssssssss*
...or at least, I hope that was sarcasm.
Apple's market share shouldn't be the problem...with anti-trust cases, the focus should be on how the market share was obtained, rather than how big it is. The only fault of Apple I could deduce from the article was them picking on Amazon, which of course shouldn't be allowed. Their huge market share on the other hand, they deserve and should be proud of having. Apple made something, lots of people bought it.
Yes, Apple has been fixing the price of music. LOWER THAN THE RECORD COMPANIES WANTED TO PRICE IT. Do these dumbasses know what a consumer protection law is for? Protip: It isn't to protect the profits of the grimy record industry who I'm sure has been lobbying away.
Edit: NVM. I thought this was related to an article I read a few weeks ago claiming that Apple was in trouble for artificially keeping the price of digital tracks high.
Edit: NVM. I thought this was related to an article I read a few weeks ago claiming that Apple was in trouble for artificially keeping the price of digital tracks high.
This is such ********. These regulatory agencies, which are nothing more than protectionist, anti-market, fascist, entities need to be ABOLISHED as being anti-thesis to a free society.
The ONLY "trusts" that exist out there are those that the government itself creates by outright BANNING competition - the Post Office, Amtrak, the ENTIRE educational system, the Federal Reserve (which is the biggest and most destructive of all), etc
The ONLY "trusts" that exist out there are those that the government itself creates by outright BANNING competition - the Post Office, Amtrak, the ENTIRE educational system, the Federal Reserve (which is the biggest and most destructive of all), etc
It would really help if searching, filtering, and sorting MP3s on the Amazon MP3 store wasn't such a complete mess. After all the Pepsi cap free giveaways (thankyouverymuch), they should have a lot more than 1.3% marketshare. This is more about mismanagement of the Amazon MP3 store than anything else.
I don't think that's the issue. The issue in my eye is the pressuring of labels over participating in Amazon's deals. That is wrong. If Apple is indeed doing these kinds of things (and I wouldn't be surprised if they are; look at how they are handling publishers trying to sale both on Amazon and iBooks), then they should be held accountable; it is my belief that such actions are anti-competitive. There's my $.02.
If only more of them had a presence within this country, this country could possibly have an influence.
Be careful there. While some regulation can be adversely effective, I would never want to see the ENTIRE public education system fall into private hands. Primary and secondary school should be rights, not privileges or services to be bought.
So, anarchy is better? What, so you can start shooting people any time you want? Get a clue.
Now THAT is funny! The only reason that there are DRM-free MP3/AAC downloads from any vendor is that Steve Jobs pressured the record companies into it. To their detriment, as it meant Amazon could compete on equal footing. More than equal footing, actually, because initially Amazon got DRM-free MP3s before the labels would give DRM-free tracks to iTunes.
No, this is just apathy on the part of Bezos for his MP3 store.
because God Forbid you bring reform to a hobbling music industry and have them follow technology instead of being the blind leading the blind. they still have breakage consessions in every recording contract even exclusively digital distribution ones. there's not physical merch! Our gov't is just friggin idiotic right now. how bout that oil spill fellas............. oh wait itunes is causing an ecological and economical crisis right now... pay no attention to BP and the rest of the ptrol companies and their price fixing.
What propaganda are you referring to? I've never seen anything beyond other people's OPINIONS that would even resemble propaganda. Please share.
Yes, very much yes.
Enforcing the rule of law in the marketplace is much needed in these days of the predatory mega-corporation.
If only they could put a leash on the drug companies, Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, Monsanto, and Wall Street.
Enforcing the rule of law in the marketplace is much needed in these days of the predatory mega-corporation.
If only they could put a leash on the drug companies, Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, Monsanto, and Wall Street.
Unimaginative and inaccurate... what a combination.
Another off-the-wall observation.
2005 called... it suggests you check with 2007 to learn some history:
- EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire
- Apple likely to lead music negotiations
--
If anything, Jobs has wielded his power (when possible) to keep the 99¢/track price structure the maximum. It's the record companies (and perhaps a few select artists) who pushed it up to $1.29 for certain 'hot-ticket' items. [back in the day, we'd get 2 songs for a buck (45 rpm).]
Except for the fact that they're clearly not falling.
But I wouldn't expect someone trolling MacRumors to see such obvious truth.
So I assume while questions are being asked about Amazon, DOJ will look into Amazon's domination of eBook sales. I mean it's a fraction of overall book sales, but Amazon probably dominates everybody else in that segment of the market. (!!!!!)
Remember how all the music on iTunes used to be DRM-protected and now it's not? Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a huge sign that APPLE IS NOT A MONOPOLY.
Speaking of Google, wonder when DOJ is going to investigate those guys. I mean how many things can one company give away to increase its stranglehold on the search market without being investigated? Most of us have literally never given Google a dime yet that company probably has the biggest stockpile of user data in the galaxy.
Remember how all the music on iTunes used to be DRM-protected and now it's not? Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a huge sign that APPLE IS NOT A MONOPOLY.
Speaking of Google, wonder when DOJ is going to investigate those guys. I mean how many things can one company give away to increase its stranglehold on the search market without being investigated? Most of us have literally never given Google a dime yet that company probably has the biggest stockpile of user data in the galaxy.
Hard to believe that Apple has antitrust style power with iTunes when it's blatantly obvious that the labels are generally allowing their songs to be sold for cheaper on Amazon even though Amazon doesn't deliver the sales volume that iTunes does.
You'd think that it would be the other way around if Apple were really in an antitrust position. Companies like WalMart (which aren't being investigated for antitrust) aggressively use their market dominance and sales volume leverage to force lower prices from those who wish to sell products in their stores.
You'd think that it would be the other way around if Apple were really in an antitrust position. Companies like WalMart (which aren't being investigated for antitrust) aggressively use their market dominance and sales volume leverage to force lower prices from those who wish to sell products in their stores.