Apple Pressuring Music Labels Over Participation in Amazon's 'Daily Deal' Program

[jzuena]

Google should respond by threatening to bury every Apple Computer link so deep that when you search for "Mac", even "Joe's apple orchard" in the middle of no where in Nebraska comes up first because of the HTC lawsuit.

hey, two can play at the blackmail game.

and when users see useless results come up, Google will get a reputation as a bad search engine and people will stop using it. It is in Google's best interests to always have the most relevant links come up in all cases. Not to mention the government scrutiny they risk if a whiff of data manipulation gets out. Whether it is legal to do or not, no company wants to get hauled in front of Congress or the EU.

 

[guzhogi]

Yeah, don't even get me started on the UNETHICAL pricing stuff done by Wal-unsMart corporation. They are responsible for killing many many good brands of products!!

Wal-Mart is also very anti-union (that could be good or bad depending on your view of unions). I heard that at one Sam's Club (which is owned by Walmart), the butchers formed a union & Sam's Club closed down the entire store. Even someone who absolutely hates unions would probably think that that's too much.

On topic, I agree with those people saying that Apple is probably unfairly competing & using its power to out the little guys, not trying to make their products & services better. But hey, business is business, right (which is why I don't like it)?

 

[steve-p]

Did I leave anything out?

Maybe the part where Apple's motives are not altruistic and have nothing to do with 'saving' the recording industry, just shifting more of their own hardware, and so they throw their toys out of the pram and cry foul when a competitor fights back, instead of maybe doing what most companies would do and just adjust their own pricing or make a similar offer to compete?

 

[spazzcat]

Is Apple that paranoid over losing market share to Amazon? It's some good old competition, the guy with little market share (Amazon) is trying to do something different in order to attract customers from the big guy (iTunes). How about instead of crying and complaining like a baby Apple should perhaps offer something similar to Amazon. Work with the labels to get something similar into iTunes.

And that is the problem, they are not willing to give Apple the same kind of deals even though they sell more music and make the recording companies tons of money.

 

[dontmatter]

All this over Mariah Carey?

Um, who is willing to fight over the latest Mariah Carey release? Maybe if it is about turning the radio off...

But seriously, why is apple doing this? I thought the whole itunes store thing was just a way to sell ipods/phones/pads? Now that DRM is over, does it really matter where people get their music, as long as they use itunes to manage it (they will), and buy one song, once, so their CC # is ready when they want to buy apps for their iphone?

Apple: lighten up, and work on making itunes better, instead.

 

[Lazerlike42]

First off, I want to say I absolutely love Amazon's daily deals. I've bought several albums that I never would have considered otherwise. It's great!

On the other hand, I realize Amazon is probably only getting these deals because the music industry wants more people to find an alternative to the iTunes Music Store. They don't like Apple having so much power.

Well, I don't like Apple having so much power, either. I really don't think most people should (or would). I was tempted to comment on the movie studio story yesterday about how one of the disagreements between Apple and the studios is whether the films should be available on multiple devices or just through Apple.

It would be terrible if Apple had exclusive rights to these things, because it would be more of a monopoly than Microsoft ever had. At least with Microsoft, you could have chosen to go Mac, or to put some kind of Linux on your machine. You may not have been able to do as much (without popular software from Microsoft or Lotus or whomever running on your Mac/Linux machine), but at least you could have a machine that wasn't Microsoft. If Apple got what the story suggested it wants, the only place you'd be able to get movies would be from Apple. There wouldn't be any other alternative of any kind.

Apple is so omnipresent in the media business right now that it is a little troubling to think of them getting a stronger presence, and that's why all these stories coming out lately (HTC, movie studios, now this Amazon thing) are so troubling. I don't want the record labels opting out of Amazon - or any other stores' - bargains just for Apple. I want to have a choice - even if I still found iTunes easiest and mainly used it.

The past week has not made Apple look good, especially this media stuff. It's really making it obvious that they want to be the only source of everything. It's understandable to want that as a business, at least to a degree, but as a consumer I don't want that at all - and I have to say that I think Apples latest moves seem to be going a bit further than most businesses would, though others may disagree.

 

[Stella]

What makes you say that?

They ARE competing with Amazon -- they're leveraging their position to obtain better deals for themselves and poorer deals for their opposition.

On what planet is that anything OTHER than competition?

You forgot to read the rest of my comment that explains why I said this:

"They'd better be careful because Apple are going down the same road as microsoft did - which lead to them being sued for abuse of market position. This is exactly what Apple are doing now - using their market position to influence the music industry."

 

[Stella]

And that is the problem, they are not willing to give Apple the same kind of deals even though they sell more music and make the recording companies tons of money.

I'd be wary of a company that has so much influence as well. I'd want to level the playing field.

Any company that has too much influence will abuse their power, for example, we saw this with IBM, microsoft, and now Apple.

 

[spazzcat]

Google should respond by threatening to bury every Apple Computer link so deep that when you search for "Mac", even "Joe's apple orchard" in the middle of no where in Nebraska comes up first because of the HTC lawsuit.

hey, two can play at the blackmail game.

I think Google would lose a lot of customers, and seeing how searching is their main business, it would be pretty stupid to not return the results the customers expects.

 

[Macmel]

As long as both songs bought in Amazon and the iTunes store are playing in your iPods, why should be anyone happy of an action on Apple's side. Why do you care if they lose money or not? If you get your album for 6 bucks, why is it important the place where you get it?
Just be happy that you can buy music for less, regardless of the reason for it of the place where you get it (of course, being legal in both sites).

 

[es2mac]

There seems to be two conflicting views,
1) Apple is abusing its position to wreck competition
2) The major labels are offering albums cheaper to Amazon, and Apple isn't happy

Which is it exactly? If Amazon is getting a much better deal than Apple, seems like Apple has every right to protest?

Maybe the quote from that "major-label executive" is skewing the perspective somewhat.

 

[jzuena]

Um, who is willing to fight over the latest Mariah Carey release? Maybe if it is about turning the radio off...

But seriously, why is apple doing this? I thought the whole itunes store thing was just a way to sell ipods/phones/pads? Now that DRM is over, does it really matter where people get their music, as long as they use itunes to manage it (they will), and buy one song, once, so their CC # is ready when they want to buy apps for their iphone?

Apple: lighten up, and work on making itunes better, instead.

I always thought that as well (both about Mariah Carey and the iTunes store ), but Apple must be making more than we think if they are doing this. Or maybe it isn't the music business they care about as much as the perception that gives to movie and publishing companies where DRM lock-in still gives the store you buy from complete say on what device you end up using. If Kindle books are perceived to be much cheaper than iTunes ones, you might just buy a Kindle instead of an iPad.

 

[Eraserhead]

I agree. One of the reasons I ended up on this site is because I was considering buying a Macbook Pro (to dual boot). Now, I am getting more and more unlikely to give money to Apple each time they do one of these things (the HTC thing, now this...)

But then again: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ is good.

Still they seem to have made a series of jackass decisions recently.

 

[oliverlubin]

what's happening to Apple?

Is Steve getting senile? Seriously!? Apple, you can dominate a market but all these tactics for killing any competition are starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

The usually avoidable "ick" factor is starting to show up more and more...

 

[xIGmanIx]

perception is that apple is being a big baby, again. I am curios to see what the *LTD* spin on this is going to be if they do indeed post.

 

[Antares]

GOOD for Apple! This is not an example competition. Amazon is getting discounts that the labels are not allowing for the iTunes Store. Fair competition would be Apple and Amazon both being allowed to do the discounts and promotions. Then, either could choose to do it or not. Apple is in the right with their actions here.

 

[RidleyGriff]

On the other hand, I realize Amazon is probably only getting these deals because the music industry wants more people to find an alternative to the iTunes Music Store.... [snip]

Don't mistake this for Apple being greedy and wanting consumers to pay $11 an album …they are just trying to get the rights to similar deals. They would LOVE to be able to sell you albums for $3-$5. Unfortunately I don't think the labels are going to allow that to happen.

You can bet your butt if Amazon starts selling a large percentage of downloadable music these great deals will stop. You get people hooked, then you start charging.

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes.

And to be honest, I don't know if I trust "competition" to even work with the record labels in the first place. We saw how that works when they were selling physical goods. It didn't. They colluded and fixed prices. If things get broken up, so Apple, Amazon, Best Buy, and Wal Mart all have equal and "competing" download stores, with universally accepted standards, I fear we would find ourselves in the exact same scenario.

Despite all the complaining, Apple being the market leader is GREAT for consumers for one very specific reason: they do not view music/digital goods as a large profit stream, but as a way to add value to their hardware. As long as this is the case, it will always be in Apple's best interest to keep prices as low as possible. The record industry knows this, and dislikes them for it.

So they've been happy to undercut Apple with Amazon because they want to steal marketshare. But its a short term tactic. Low prices is one of the main reasons they want to move away from Apple; anyone that thinks loosening Apple's grip will result in lower prices is being willfully naive.

 

[Michael CM1]

I have bought plenty of those deals at Amazon, but it's a deal that reeks financially.

iTunes helped build legit online music sales, and the recording companies repay them by only letting competitors put out ridiculously low sales? I'm all for Amazon being a strong competitor in this market and eBooks, but by Amazon figuring out its own ways to do things better.

Considering Amazon sells the older MP3 format instead of MPA/AAC, I don't buy from Amazon unless it's a ridiculous sale. I also don't like how in iTunes, an explicit album will have [Explicit] in every track name instead of the red tag that iTunes-bought songs used.

 

[citi]

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes.

And to be honest, I don't know if I trust "competition" to even work with the record labels in the first place. We saw how that works when they were selling physical goods. It didn't. They colluded and fixed prices. If things get broken up, so Apple, Amazon, Best Buy, and Wal Mart all have equal and "competing" download stores, with universally accepted standards, I fear we would find ourselves in the exact same scenario.

Despite all the complaining, Apple being the market leader is GREAT for consumers for one very specific reason: they do not view music/digital goods as a large profit stream, but as a way to add value to their hardware. As long as this is the case, it will always be in Apple's best interest to keep prices as low as possible. The record industry knows this, and dislikes them for it.

So they've been happy to undercut Apple with Amazon because they want to steal marketshare. But its a short term tactic. Low prices is one of the main reasons they want to move away from Apple; anyone that thinks loosening Apple's grip will result in lower prices is being willfully naive.

Apple = 30% take. If they got the same $6 dollar deal as amazon, the labels would make less because of the 30% take. All apple has to do is give up their 30% and I'm sure the label would allow it. Just like Amazon.

Isn't that the point anyway? Sell the music to support your media player? I knew a guy that was one of the original itunes programming managers. When it first started, they made enough to cover the cost of creating and maintaining Itunes. I wonder if I asked now what would he say?

I love Apple products, but this is not a fairness issue, it's a free market issue.

 

[RidleyGriff]

Maybe the part where Apple's motives are not altruistic and have nothing to do with 'saving' the recording industry, just shifting more of their own hardware, and so they throw their toys out of the pram and cry foul when a competitor fights back, instead of maybe doing what most companies would do and just adjust their own pricing or make a similar offer to compete?

Where did I mention anything altruistic? I said "Apple steps forward with iPod/iTMS and makes downloadable music a legitimate business."

That's what this is -- business. The recording industry is undercutting Partner A for Partner B. Partner B has leverage to fight back for equal terms. So they do. Where's the problem?

I mean, you do understand that Apple can't sell songs for whatever they'd like, right? You have been following this long enough to know that the labels forced Apple to RAISE their prices when they went DRM free?

 

[citi]

I have bought plenty of those deals at Amazon, but it's a deal that reeks financially.

iTunes helped build legit online music sales, and the recording companies repay them by only letting competitors put out ridiculously low sales? I'm all for Amazon being a strong competitor in this market and eBooks, but by Amazon figuring out its own ways to do things better.

Considering Amazon sells the older MP3 format instead of MPA/AAC, I don't buy from Amazon unless it's a ridiculous sale. I also don't like how in iTunes, an explicit album will have [Explicit] in every track name instead of the red tag that iTunes-bought songs used.

uhh, nobody owes Apple anything. They have been done quite well thoughout this "music recession"

 

[jz1492]

One moment, ...

... so many negative posts in this thread, claiming Apple is strong-arming, even suing somebody over music pricing is ridiculous.

The labels are the bad guys here. For a long time they have been strong-arming Apple over pricing and rights over DRM-free distribution, with the only purpose of taking full control over digital distribution.

Giving Amazon better prices and exclusive access to DRM-free deals is similar to what MS was sued for.

Amazon cannot offer 50%+ discounts over iTunes prices without preferential treatment from the labels --Apple is making less than 30% on songs.

My guess is most of the negative posts in this thread are in response to the HTC lawsuit. Apple customers or not. Maybe some Android fans

Yet, Android will have a better chance at leading when Google breaks free from having to follow Apple. I think Apple is doing them good.

 

[Pablo631]

Apple is turing into a really greedy company. How sad. Makes me want to go google. When Adobe makes their software run on the Chrome OS, then I'll think about making the switch. Apple just isn't the same company anymore. I blame the ipod.

But on the other hand, Apple give me my new MacBook Pro already!

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Apple is now the bully on the block. The bully is never happy when those that are picked on team up with someone else.

Them's the breaks, Apple.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The labels are the bad guys here. For a long time they have been strong-arming Apple over pricing and rights over DRM-free distribution, with the only purpose of taking full control over digital distribution.

Giving Amazon better prices and exclusive access to DRM-free deals is similar to what MS was sued for.

Amazon cannot offer 50%+ discounts over iTunes prices without preferential treatment from the labels --Apple is making less than 30% on songs.

Perhaps I don't understand the law. Isn't Apple free to match the prices on Amazon daily deals? Best Buy offeres low prices on DVD release days, Walmart got an exclusive version of Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray, Gamestop, Amazon, and Best Buy all get exclusive pre-order bonuses that no other retailer has...

Exclusive sales happen all the time. I also don't see how to paint a record company as a bad guy in this case. Are we seriously going to get mad at them for selling DRM free .mp3s at half the normal cost? How spoiled are we now?