Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WTF, Itunes is the only site I actually pay for music. I dont see why the entertainment industry would have a problem with this. Most people just download from pirate sites but itunes is so convenient that I even use it when my alternative is free. Thats how convenient it is to me, its not just about price.. cant really beat free unless you have a seriously good product.

The music industry should be THRILLED with Itunes. With out it their would be a LOT more pirate downloads

urm no...

piracy has increased significantly since digitally downloaded music became more mainstream.
 
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.


iCon may have said that but it's far from the truth.

Fairplay DRM benefitted Apple massively up to a point by locking people into iPod/iTunes.

Apple saw the DRM backlash coming (once they had the marketshare) and bailed.

very clever by iCon to pin the blame on the record companies.
 
I'm confused. Why would the the govt look at Apple. .

Because Apple is attempting to strongarm companies into not dealing with a rival of theirs. That's illegal. That's dirty. That's going to get them into hot water like it has. And it illustrates perfectly what an ugly company they're fast becoming.
 
Apple saw the DRM backlash coming (once they had the marketshare) and bailed.

very clever by iCon to pin the blame on the record companies.
You forget however that the record labels themselves were very against DRM free music for a very long time - I have seen quotes from Warner and Sony that basically said that they would never let Apple do that. When music stores were just getting started (and even when iTunes came around) DRM was almost always there. It wasn't until Amazon started selling mp3's that the clamor started getting large enough. In reality Apple cared little if people got their music from P2P or from the iTunes Store - they just cared if people were listening to it on the iPod which at the time the music store came out, was already really popular.

DRM did work for Apple, but general music listening and selling a really good music player was better for them. If it was all about the lock in to iTunes, than the software should have been made available on the PC on day one instead of using MusicMatch.

When it comes to selling music, Apple cannot just do whatever they want - a great deal of their decision making is based on the approval of the IP owners - the record labels.
 
Because Apple is attempting to strongarm companies into not dealing with a rival of theirs. That's illegal. That's dirty. That's going to get them into hot water like it has. And it illustrates perfectly what an ugly company they're fast becoming.
Where has Apple told music studios that they cannot sell their music at other retailers at all?
 
Where has Apple told music studios that they cannot sell their music at other retailers at all?

That's not the allegation. The allegation was that Apple threatened to retaliate against the labels if the labels continued supporting Amazon's daily deal.

Anti-competitive behavior does not require that Apple totally exclude or destroy competition. It's enough that it leverages its market power in a way that results in increased prices for consumers. If the allegations are true, Apple likely has a problem, though it will also be able to argue that the overall effect is a reduction in prices (probably not a good argument, since music still costs a lot) and that it has insufficient market power (there are other big competitors, but Apple has enough market leverage to make this dicey).

p.s.: "not dealing" is an acceptable shorthand for "not entering or continuing in a particular deal," IMHO - I assume that's what the poster meant.
 
p.s.: "not dealing" is an acceptable shorthand for "not entering or continuing in a particular deal," IMHO - I assume that's what the poster meant.
My post was going off of my interpretation of what "not dealing" meant. My interpretation was that he meant that Apple was forcing the labels not to sell their music - a notion that I felt was absurd.

Anyhow, from what I have read, this wasn't about forcing higher prices on Apple's side of things, the allegations (supposedly) that Apple isn't going to promote those artists on their front pages. Again, from what I understand, Apple's beef is with the exclusionary period and the undercutting that Amazon is offering. I think that Apple doesn't want their partners doing both activitiesat the same time. Apple isn't forcing any price hikes and they aren't against exclusivity (at least from what I understand). What I am reading is that Apple is encouraging fair pricing through their marketing prowess like another retailer would do.
 
My post was going off of my interpretation of what "not dealing" meant. My interpretation was that he meant that Apple was forcing the labels not to sell their music - a notion that I felt was absurd.

Anyhow, from what I have read, this wasn't about forcing higher prices on Apple's side of things, the allegations (supposedly) that Apple isn't going to promote those artists on their front pages. Again, from what I understand, Apple's beef is with the exclusionary period and the undercutting that Amazon is offering. I think that Apple doesn't want their partners doing both activitiesat the same time. Apple isn't forcing any price hikes and they aren't against exclusivity (at least from what I understand). What I am reading is that Apple is encouraging fair pricing through their marketing prowess like another retailer would do.

The analysis will be based on the effect, not on Apple's goals. The argument (again, I don't know if it's true) is that Amazon couldn't continue to sell music at a discount compared to Apple (daily deals) because Apple threatened retaliation against the record labels. If true, then competition for those particular songs/albums was damaged, and the price was higher than it should have been.
 
The analysis will be based on the effect, not on Apple's goals. The argument (again, I don't know if it's true) is that Amazon couldn't continue to sell music at a discount compared to Apple (daily deals) because Apple threatened retaliation against the record labels. If true, then competition for those particular songs/albums was damaged, and the price was higher than it should have been.

I haven't read anything that suggests that Amazon couldn't continue to sell discounted music - I doubt that Apple would even want to even suggest that it was trying to do that (especially after they had to publicly announce variable pricing).

The problem that I see is proving the effect overall and determining if Apple can meet the definition of a trust or just a successful business operator. Apple may have a large percentage of digital music sales, but we all know that Apple is going to work very hard to argue (as they have in their keynotes) that they actually have a smaller share of music sales overall. As you have pointed out before, Antitrust requires a relevant market and even then that is only one part.

Anyway, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Right now this is just an inquiry - not an all out investigation or trial here. My guess is that the courts are just investigating a complaint from somebody - which they are obligated to do merit or not.
 
The analysis will be based on the effect, not on Apple's goals. The argument (again, I don't know if it's true) is that Amazon couldn't continue to sell music at a discount compared to Apple (daily deals) because Apple threatened retaliation against the record labels. If true, then competition for those particular songs/albums was damaged, and the price was higher than it should have been.

What about the affect prior to Apple's stance? How much more did those same sales cost Apple customers since apple was prohibited from offering these same deals. Is Apple supposed to give these same music companies prominent positioning on the itunes site, market the hell out of them for free and then get sacked by then giving an outlet to sell that same music at a much lower cost. Not to mention allow them to sell it first on Amazon before it was even allowed to be sold on iTunes? That was the original issue as well don't forget.
 
iCon may have said that but it's far from the truth.

Fairplay DRM benefitted Apple massively up to a point by locking people into iPod/iTunes.
Revisionist history...

iTunes would never have been allowed initially without DRM. Every online music store had to have their own version (most supported the doomed PlaysForSure method used by Microsoft). Nobody had a leg up on anyone else. If what you were implying were true, there should've been a groundswell for the Microsoft solution, not the Apple solution. The only reason iTunes did as well as it did was that people liked iPods and they like iTunes. If Microsoft and their hardware partners hadn't designed their products from the perspective of engineers and focused just a little more on UX, then maybe the outcome would've been different. I'm sure with Steve Ballmer in charge of the Zune that things will change dramatically (for the worst! LOL!)
 
This whole thing is because of the schmucks Obama put into high level positions in the DoJ. Obama filled high level positions with former rank and file RIAA lawyers.
 
The analysis will be based on the effect, not on Apple's goals. The argument (again, I don't know if it's true) is that Amazon couldn't continue to sell music at a discount compared to Apple (daily deals) because Apple threatened retaliation against the record labels. If true, then competition for those particular songs/albums was damaged, and the price was higher than it should have been.

Apple should have every right to let their partners know they will no longer be paying out of pocket for promotion of their partners products if their partners are subsidizing a competing service.

If the DoJ wants someone to investigate go investigate Intel who truly has abused its monopoly over the past decade and continues to do so. Or maybe investigate the RIAA/MPAA for their shenanigans over the last 30 years.

If the DoJ wasn't stacked with former RIAA/MPAA lawyers(thanks Obama) this wouldn't be under investigation.
 
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



What you endorse is not the free market but anarchy and the powerful repressing the weak without state intervention.
 
Cue the hordes of raving luny rightists.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out. It's best for consumers if anti-competitive behaviour is squashed.
 
iCon may have said that but it's far from the truth.

Fairplay DRM benefitted Apple massively up to a point by locking people into iPod/iTunes.

Apple saw the DRM backlash coming (once they had the marketshare) and bailed.

very clever by iCon to pin the blame on the record companies
.

Prove it. Provide one link which actually backs up that baloney with *proof*.

Else, you're nothing but a big hairy troll talkin' trash. [yes, i just called you a liar.]
 
All media? The foundational premise is that Apple would have to be able to exert monopoly control, do they have that over movies and TV shows? If the DoJ is that interested in media, I think an inquiry into NetFlix and Hulu would be in order. Remember, it's not enough to have a demonstrable monopoly, they also have to prove it was gained or maintained by illegal means.

If the DoJ really cares about competition, how come there are now only three international airlines and four national wireless cellular providers?
 
Since when did 29.7% of the market become a trust?
Sounds a bit low, yeah. Even the stricter EU market has a higher threshold than that:

wiki said:
Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". The lowest yet market share of a firm considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.