Greed has no limits with these trillion dollar tech monsters
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 Fined $150M+ By Italian Watchdog for Anti-Competitive Cooperation With Amazon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They said the same thing about Korea, China and a bunch of other countries.
If they did leave each country they had a fine, Apple would collapse, so....
Apple leaving a market for not following the rules would be like the kid taking the ball and going home..
Mamma mia!
Apple is super strong here in Italy, almost everyone has an iPhone, you see so many around.
Also, as an Italian myself, I'd hate to see Apple moving out.
I think super big companies such as Apple and Amazon take eventual fines they'd have to pay into consideration.
225 mil is a lot, but in reality how much in the grand scheme of things?
Apple is super strong here in Italy, almost everyone has an iPhone, you see so many around.
Also, as an Italian myself, I'd hate to see Apple moving out.
I think super big companies such as Apple and Amazon take eventual fines they'd have to pay into consideration.
225 mil is a lot, but in reality how much in the grand scheme of things?
I don't mind Amazon as a seller, it can be denied their customer service is top notch and the prices are super competitive...how many of use could realistically live without it?
What I'm scared of is their shady behaviour, aggressive data collection prolicies, the development of dystopic technologies and the will to contrast privacy protecting laws.
You must not obstruct competition, that’s it, doesn’t really matter how you do it. If you don’t, you’re free to sell whatever you want to whoever you want.
It’s like impersonating someone: you’re free, you can do it for halloween, you can’t do it for a scam.
Your doubts may be about grey areas, where the judge has to understand someone’s intentions, but this probably isn’t one…
(I’m totally not a lawyer, this is just the principle behind the decision for how I understand it)
I don't get it. Apple sells their stuff from just about every place around me, so 'anti-competitive'? Hmm...
The fine for Amazon should be 1 billion dollars.
Apple colluding with Amazon is a stain.
Apple colluding with Amazon is a stain.
I actually stopped buying Apple products through Amazon until this Apple+Amazon deal occurred due to the high occurrence of fake merchandise being supplied through Amazon from third party sellers.
Chargers, cables, cases, watch bands. All of those were being peddled by fakers and some still are but at-least the main stuff is legit.
I don't defend this deal they made, it's clearly anti-competitive. But Amazon really needs to get a handle on fake merchandise to win back the confidence of buyers.
The situation has only gotten worse with the advent of the fulfilled by Amazon program where third party sellers can have their products mingle in with first party products thus making it a lottery whether you actually receive a legitimate good or not even when buying from Amazon directly and not a third party seller.
Again I'm not saying that excuses the anti-competitive nature of this Apple+Amazon deal. I'm saying Amazon has a problem to solve regardless.
Chargers, cables, cases, watch bands. All of those were being peddled by fakers and some still are but at-least the main stuff is legit.
I don't defend this deal they made, it's clearly anti-competitive. But Amazon really needs to get a handle on fake merchandise to win back the confidence of buyers.
The situation has only gotten worse with the advent of the fulfilled by Amazon program where third party sellers can have their products mingle in with first party products thus making it a lottery whether you actually receive a legitimate good or not even when buying from Amazon directly and not a third party seller.
Again I'm not saying that excuses the anti-competitive nature of this Apple+Amazon deal. I'm saying Amazon has a problem to solve regardless.
Restricting the number of sellers allowed to sell Beat products means Amazon and Apple can keep the price of Beats products artificially high by telling all the selected sellers to sell at a specific price. In restriciting who can sell Beats products means they have removed the possibility of a seller selling Beats at a reduced price. This practice contravenes EU law.
but that is the question isn't it? I'm sure Fiat is allowed to control its distribution channels, so aren't other companies also allowed to control theirs? You know, rules and such. so if apple has a set of standards (which they do) for being able to sell their products, how is enforcing their own contracts a violation of a country's rules and such? Can everybody sell anything to anybody in Italy?
Surely that is true if you are selling commodities, but companies are allowed to set standards for their distribution channels. Or are you saying that EU law allows anyone to sell everything? So I could sell Fiat's on Amazon in Italy?
Thanks for the lecture though, I too took Econ 101. But you missed the crux of the question. Are companies allowed to control the distribution channels for their products in Italy? I am presuming the answer is yes, because all modern economies allow this, its called branding.
If you took Econ 101 then why are you asking a question you already know the answer too?
I don’t think such a small period of time could be described as “waiting” 🙃🙃
As an Apple enthusiast, I can't really understand how consumers can defend Apple and Amazon here.
It's against the consumer's own economic interest to support such an agreement. If the point were to fight non-genuine products, Amazon could simply highlight with some blue checkbox the certified resellers, and ban those selling counterfeit products, if any.
It's against the consumer's own economic interest to support such an agreement. If the point were to fight non-genuine products, Amazon could simply highlight with some blue checkbox the certified resellers, and ban those selling counterfeit products, if any.
I get what you are saying but you are missing the next part. Impersonating to get financial funds is fraud, and it is a criminal offense. In Italy as others have alluded, getting genuine products is a gamble. By cleaning up the market and knowing you will be getting authentic goods buying via Amazon in this case is a win for the consumer and the constituents of the land. Take AirPods as an example, there are so many imitation copies out, if you want to buy an imitation thats ok, but selling imitation like a genuine Apple product is a crime.
"Cooperation With Amazon"
Isn't that like saying Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook are best buds and take a steam together every afternoon? (which I believe is quite unlikely, since they live so far apart)
No, they wouldn't let resellers sell Apple products. Why would Apple care if a company selling chocolates was authorized by Apple?
If MediaWorld is an Apple partner, wouldn't it imply they are authorized and thus not have any problems listing products on Amazon?
A EU free market on commerce is something EU countries governments have championed for years of which a huge majority of companies hate because it means companies are not able to 'fix' the markets in their favour because if they do they get charged with anti competitive and antitrust laws. Mobile phone companies have done it and got caught, utility companies have done it and got caught, some car manufacturers on their spare parts did it and got caught. It happens all the time and will still happen because it is impossible for some companies to behave legally.
It's plenty of local stores selling Apple products. I'm doubt each of these store has been authorized by Apple, so I guess that Apple products can be sold by any seller, provided (of course) that the origin of these products is legal.
Then why shouldn't the very same resellers sell the same products on Amazon?
Apple will never pull out of a market voluntarily. They never leave money on the table. Lol
Why would a corporation have to be responsible for improving society. Shouldnt that be the responsibility of the government.