You should move where there are not any of the "regulatory agencies" and you'll see that it is not that fun to live in anarchy.
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
You should move where there are not any of the "regulatory agencies" and you'll see that it is not that fun to live in anarchy.
I can't say I'm surprised, and given some of the feedback I've read elsewhere many people are quite pleased that apple is under the microscope since many of them do believe they've abused their dominant position.
I've noticed an increase in apple's arrogance within the last few years, this could be the end product of that arrogance. When companies think they're too important or big to follow the rules, the US government steps in
I've noticed an increase in apple's arrogance within the last few years, this could be the end product of that arrogance. When companies think they're too important or big to follow the rules, the US government steps in
You are 100% wrong. The government is the last entity capable of managing any of those things you listed.
Neither is Microsoft. For the record, I think the only company turning into the new Microsoft is Microsoft.
I am a big Amazon fan and buy a lot of just about everything from them but I have to admit I have never even looked at their music download section--it is so easy to buy music from iTunes, seems hardly worth the effort to look anywhere else for legitimate music downloads.
I'm glad to see the gov move in on apples tactics. They have gone to far with restricting competition.
One of my grumbles is how iTunes (which owns 70% of market internet music sales) restrict other mp3 players to sync to download the songs. I believe this happened with the pre. That's like windows saying your not allowed to use x brands printers. It's anti-competitive tactics. Apple is worse than MS. I'm glad they don't own any significant market share of pcs or we would all be f,,,
One of my grumbles is how iTunes (which owns 70% of market internet music sales) restrict other mp3 players to sync to download the songs. I believe this happened with the pre. That's like windows saying your not allowed to use x brands printers. It's anti-competitive tactics. Apple is worse than MS. I'm glad they don't own any significant market share of pcs or we would all be f,,,
Except that I can sync the Amazon MP3s to ANY media player (including my iPod) but I can only sync the iTunes files to an iPod (DRM or no). So to my mind that is still closed.
Still that is not the point of this investigation. The point is they own 69% of the digital music download market and are allegedly using that power to force the music labels to stop working with the competition.
No that is not true - DRM free files can be synced to any AAC compatible player. You cannot do it through iTunes, but the songs are not hidden and can be accessed in any way shape or form.
ETA: True, DRM files cannot be synced to any player, but that is the problem of DRM - a system that Apple has not used in years and can be easily defeated.
Okay fair enough (and I must admit I did not think of transferring them manually or pulling out the files). I do however have a huge library of older AAC files from iTunes with DRM
I agree with this in general terms but disagree with your assessment that apple has to open up iTunes and let other MP3 players interact with iTunes. The Pre was a different and bad example, as they "spoofed' the software into thinking it was an iPod in a way that was counter to the USB standard by using an apple vendor ID.
Over all I think apple has been abusing its position, whether its enough to justify a full blown antitrust suit is another matter but correct me if I'm wrong. They now have three antitrust investigations going on.
Forcing developers to use their SDK
[possibly] forcing the use of iAds over any other advertisments
And this.
Doesn't look good for apple, and their behavior.
So much for fighting the 1984 big brother, as they marketed for the original macintosh. They are now big brother.
That's why I acknowledged DRM files - some of which I have myself. Although I should point out that at least the DRM is easily defeated and (at least at the time) was not something that Apple wanted to do.Okay fair enough (and I must admit I did not think of transferring them manually or pulling out the files). I do however have a huge library of older AAC files from iTunes with DRM
Really? Unless you restrict the relevant market to digital music sales, nowhere do they have any market power. And you are misstating the situation. These are inquires and not investigations.
Sorry that is not illegal to do. Console makers do this kind of stuff completely legally.
Unless you have evidence to back this up, don't make speculative claims. Everything I have heard since it was announced says otherwise.
This is just a preliminary investigation. Just because you get questioned by the cops doesn't mean that they are going to arrest you or throw you in the clink.
Just read all the tech media and you'll see the coordinated attacks against Apple without much of a factual basis. When you see the same meme started on site after site, you know it's propaganda.
It isn't presented as opinions, it's presented as facts.
Well, I'm no lawyer but it appears that the government is having an issue with apple forcing the sdk. So ask them about the legality not me.
I said possibly, besides its not my responsibility to provide evidence, infact that's why the government is investigating apple on this. They're concerned that apple will create an unfair environment that's heavily slanted towards their iAds.
Yes and every arrest begins with questions, so what's your point. Clearly apple has been acting in such away that the government feels the need to question them.
Police don't just randomly talk to people to question if they're obeying the law. They conduct an investigation where people of interest are targeted to discern whether the law was broken by them.
From what I hear, its in response to a complaint from Adobe. I don't have anything to back that up, but I wouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill. We cannot assume that anything illegal is going on. We are miles from anything. The US government obviously does lots of inquiries.
Sorry, you made an assertion. You cannot use weasel words to back yourself out of without evidence to back up your case. I cannot just go throw out alligations to justify an investigation.
You said that it looks bad for Apple. My point is that you cannot really make that statement. An inquiry doesn't mean anything. Right now Apple has an equal possibility of having the inquiry be dropped as there is on one going forward. Neither of us are lawyers, but I am not the one passing judgment here
Right. But just being questioned doesn't automatically mean that laws are being broken. Police/authorities have to determine that a crime has taken place first. Just because there is an inquiry does not imply that any crime has been committed.
My point is that you are putting the cart before the horse - as of right now Apple hasn't even been accused of any crimes right now and there is no proof that any crime has been committed. Nobody "can look bad here" because nobody has concluded that possibility yet. When the Courts say otherwise than you can make your statement.
Except that the last antitrust suit was against apple during an altogether different administration..
My guess is that this isn't just about the iTunes store, but more about how Apple sells the music but locks one into using an iPod.. or forcing people to burn lossy music to CD and then re-rip for further lossy use in another MP3 player?
I'm not wealising out of anything. Sorry but I'm just stating what's already being discussed and/or investigated
Ok, let me rephrase it. How can it look good for apple at having three separate antitrust investigations into possible and alleged misdeeds. No matter how you slice it, its bad press, and further enforces the perception that apple is behaving in an uncompetitive manner. It many not be antitrust illegal (we have to wait and see) but having the government breath down their backs is never a good thing.
You're right but its a completely different case of the police stopping someone randomly vs. identifying a person who may have committed a crime. This is the latter issue, apple may have committed a crime and the government is looking into it. Regardless of who reports it, they (gov't) feel there's enough evidence to expend resources start an inquiry
btw, in this age, we typically try people/companies in the press on their alleged deeds, apple will be no different and right now people are coming out against them for their actions.
You're right, they haven't but in this day and age, where perception is king, and apple long being the darling of the media. This is bad for them. It does look bad for them. It takes internal energy and focus in attending to the providing the various agencies data they're questing getting more lawyers involved in their day to day processes. There's only enough time and energy and if they spend a lot on this, other things are affect.
So I stand by my post, apple is under the microscope for three disparate actions that seem to show anti-competitive behavior.
You're exactly right, but it sure is fun watching the fanboys excuse what they vilify other companies for. Funny how that works.
Paranoia is funny.
Most of those tracks can be upgraded, but not for free, and it can't be done piecemeal. Apparently this is because the music studios insisted on a revenue stream for anyone converting from the DRM'ed AAC format. On the plus side, the bit rate is doubled to 256 kbs (from 128 kps).Okay fair enough (and I must admit I did not think of transferring them manually or pulling out the files). I do however have a huge library of older AAC files from iTunes with DRM
Except that if Apple does not have a trust (usually a monopoly, though non-monopolies can be considered trusts), then that type of behavior is just business. It's not wrong in and of itself. Only if Apple is so entrenched that they can actually prevent new competition or completely destroy their other competition by such tactics. They're not nearly big enough in that market to do so. They don't have a trust, in my mind (of course, a judge would have to make the final decision on that, but in that market I think it would be rather absurd to do so).
jW
I'm confused. Why would the the govt look at Apple. Shouldn't they be squarely looking at the music industry?
I thought the music labels set the pricing. Wasn't it the music industry that clamored for variable pricing? So how can Apple be at fault? Also, Apple has been the ones complaing to the record companies that they allow Amazon and maybe others to sell the same music with the daily deals that undercut Apple's pricing. Wasn't it the music industry that was offering Amazon the exclusivity for new releases as well. This was why Apple threatened to remove marketing support since Apple provides this at no charge.
I thought the music labels set the pricing. Wasn't it the music industry that clamored for variable pricing? So how can Apple be at fault? Also, Apple has been the ones complaing to the record companies that they allow Amazon and maybe others to sell the same music with the daily deals that undercut Apple's pricing. Wasn't it the music industry that was offering Amazon the exclusivity for new releases as well. This was why Apple threatened to remove marketing support since Apple provides this at no charge.