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.
FTC Also Investigating Apple's Upcoming Music Streaming Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Only about 5000 posts about how stupid these governments are... how there are countless better things to be "wasting taxpayer dollars" on and how there are countless more evil things being done by <insert any other company name> to deflect implied wrongdoing away from Apple.
Even in this very thread, there's people posting that Apple's iBooks wrongdoings were actually right, aimed at saving the book industry, etc. Even in being found guilty which comes with a tangible benefit for us consumers, there are Apple fans who still argue the counter. I wonder if such people just send their net pay directly to Apple and/or offer their firstborn in sacrifice to their almighty?
Rivals trying to make up stories to delay Apple's release of there music service. They are all scared.
Nice try defending Apple but this is for real. When a government agency stirs to action, something is up. That cannot be made up.
Besides it is unethical or possibly illegal for any entity to fake a story and name a government agency just to slander another entity. No company would be this stupid to do that.
The music industry may be greedy but they're not dumb to mess with the government. And besides it is NOT Apple's job to play the role of a music label. Their job is to provide digital solutions to those who may have need for it.
While I agree that the ebook situation isn't ideal, but I think they have weathered the digital revolution better than the music, tv, and movie industries overall. Despite the negatives you pointed out, literature consumption is higher than it was in the 80s or 90s. Kids are reading more than before. While it's true that Amazon isn't a lovable start-up, you can't say their entire Kindle brands (Kindle Unlimited, Public Library Books for Kindle, to name a few) and Audible haven't made literature more accessible than it has ever been in the history of books.
Unlike music and movies, at least the book industry was quick to embrace digital and weren't afraid to sacrifice profits for good user experience.
I agree with the rest of what you said though; even though I'm one of those that still wants to own my music. Ironically, I miss the old Zune Music Subscription plan, where for $10/month you got unlimited streaming and something like 5 songs per month to own for life.
So then why is everyone acting like this is Apple's fault if this was always the end game?
Sounds more like Spotify and others are trying to get Apple to take the blame for what was always inevitable. What happens when they have to raise prices anyway regardless of Apple? The artists aren't making enough money to pay the bills that's why Taylor pulled her music off of Spotify in the first place. Lets make no mistake here. I'm sorry 6 million dollars/year to spread across all of the people involved in the promotion and marketing and creating the product leaves very little money when spread across hundreds of people etc. My other point that people didn't read the article well that obviously still stands based on the comments here. My guess is Apple wants to lower the ceiling and raise the floor. I don't see why this is such a problem for everyone. It's what Apple has always done. I fail to see what Spotify has to do with this. I think this is the music industry trying to extort Apple or put the streaming cat back in the bag. it also could be the radio industry fighting against the streaming services which render them almost useless.
If I were Apple I'd sit this one out for awhile until the scrutiny dies down on this. I don't see any upside for them pursuing a streaming service at this point outside of what they already have. They can always come up with one later.
Last edited:
Really? I heard a rumor that viachicago22 kicks puppies. So, it has to have at least a portion of truth to it, because somebody wrote it on the internet.
--Eric
Haha it's cats not puppies. So, see, some truth in it. I concede it's possible that there's zero truth to it but it just seems naive to believe that. It seems clear there's some pretty consistent leaks concerning apple's plans and they're usually hardly off completely, like 100% wrong. There are examples of that I'm sure. But, besides, it makes sense that apple would be doing this. It's good business sense, but that doesn't mean it's "right".
What a dick move by Spotify offering three month premium for 0.99 cent to counter Apple's desire to consolidate services and be more profitable.
https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/
https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/
What is your definition of monopoly? According to Forbes article, Amazon has a rather nice chunk of the ebook market. (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/02/10/amazon-vs-book-publishers-by-the-numbers/). No granted this is from 2014, so the number could have gone up or down.
They should investigate why iTunes does not have a music streaming service like Spotify and why Beats will not be part of iTunes Match.
Glad to see the FTC looking into this, before the whole music market is distorted by Apple's actions.
But the regulators should start going after officers pushing these shady practices.
Without personal responsibly, it's a game of "If I can slide this through, I'll get a big bonus, if they catch us, the shareholders will pay."
But the regulators should start going after officers pushing these shady practices.
Without personal responsibly, it's a game of "If I can slide this through, I'll get a big bonus, if they catch us, the shareholders will pay."
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Define it as you wish. The problem with monopoly is when it's used to exploit customers. When the iBooks case was hot, Apple was deflecting blame by rallying against Amazon because Amazon was UNDERpricing books. In so doing, instead of exploiting customers, customers were benefitting by lower prices. Apples "solution" was a model that would set book prices higher and position Apple as "favored nation" which, in short, means consumers would pay more and book competitors could not undercut Apple pricing. Between the two (and if you can be objective), which looks most favorable to consumers?
Sure, there is a scenario where Amazon could eventually underprice all competitors such that it eventually dominate ALL of the book market. Conceptually, they could then jack up book prices since they are the one dominant bookseller and (again conceptually), consumers would be at the mercy of higher prices for books. But think that through. If an Amazon suddenly jacked up book prices, would it be impossible for an Apple or a Walmart.com or a multitude of others to quickly re-enter the book-selling space with discounted prices? How much of a lock could an Amazon really get on the book publishers? And even if you speculate some kind of huge lock, the GOV in this case demonstrated that it cares enough about the book market to step in and sock it to a big company trying to exploit consumers (so Amazon would get their punishment in such a scenario too).
Bookselling is not a Standard Oil or AT&T long-distance situation where a single company could truly lock up/control all supply. So the hotly spun scenario of Amazon getting to eventually rip us all off in a potential monopoly on books was spin or naivety at best, mostly to try to support Apple's iBook objectives even if we consumers would have to pay more for books in the short term if Apple's way had become THE way.
In that case, the GOV did something right for the people it represents: it kept a huge company and it's suppliers from artificially propping up prices at consumer expense while preventing competitors from fully competing on price. If it wasn't Apple on the other end of that action, we'd be cheering on pretty much any Apple competitor getting smacked down. But since it was Apple, we continue to try to deflect a GUILTY outcome away to shift blame or fault to anyone else.
The GOV acting as representation of the people won that case. That means we won that case. Continuing to wiggle in defense of Apple is essentially arguing against your own best interests. Instead of paying more for books now so that Apple can enjoy even more profits, we get to pay less, Amazon is not exploiting us, and Apple seems to be profiting just fine without these added book profits.
Last edited:
And even more importantly, by removing the ability of ebook sellers to discount prices, Apple and the publishers eliminated the smaller, non-hardware producing sellers.
Before Apple did this, there were a number of smaller sites selling ebooks, in various formats and at various prices.
While Amazon discounted the biggest sellers, there were smaller retailers who discounted less popular or older titles (for instance, Updike or Vonnegut titles) and sold them cheaper than Amazon.
There were search engines for ebook prices, listing a whole bunch of retailers. It was an active market.
After Apple colluded with the major publishers, this market was destroyed.
Without the ability to discount titles, there was no reason for consumers to purchase titles outside of their hardware ecosystem. So, if you had a Kindle, you bought from Amazon, iPad -- from Apple, Kobo -- from Kobo. The prices were all the same, so convenience was what mattered the most.
Apple can be truly evil and someone should have been punished personally, instead of slapping a nominal fine on the shareholders, after the market was destroyed (and never recovered) and Apple got its 20% market share.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But I never said nor was I defending Apple. I was merely commenting on the monopoly in which Amazon, by my definition does have. But that is for another time or place.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If a personal definition of monopoly involves low prices for consumers without flipping into an exploitative one, I'm all for it... much like I can accept Apple having 100% control over the iOS App store (though I consider that a much tighter lock than what Amazon has over books).
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
While this may ,in the short term, bring some revenue for beats; however, apple risk alienating a huge market , most tweens I know are utube and spotify, freemium users, i can not see them moving over to a paid beats service. Some may, maybe a small minority, i bet.
All apple will achieve with this venture would be to alienate the younger generation, and drive up illegal mp3 downloads.
All apple will achieve with this venture would be to alienate the younger generation, and drive up illegal mp3 downloads.
You mean those tweens which own Iphones and buy Beats hardware?
Most artists make next to no money off streams and illegal downloads already exist. I could download 500K songs in 4-5 months easy.
Those same teens were paying for music for the last 70 years until the last 2 years. That tells you they can, and will, if they like the artist enough.
Even when you could buy songs for $1 (which is 5-6 times cheaper than buying a single in the 1960s), you could still download mp3s. Didn't stop tweens from buying them did it?
There's no such thing as a free lunch, the current system of streaming is unsustainable from the artists and label's point of view. Spotify doesn't make money even by crapping on the artists head; they're afraid that with Apple coming in, they'll either have to pay artists more (most of them are indie ones which make very little money in general) which will make it even harder to break even, or fold.
Why should apple worry about another companies business model if it is unsustainable? Why would they even bother thinking about something that will be gone shortly? When any company tries to illegally disrupt or put another company out of business it's smacks of fear. All any company has to do to prove themselves is put out a product, if it's good it will sell. For people to really believe that altruism is behind a move like that is just plain being blind. No one stops the labels from giving the artists a larger cut of the profits or apple from giving the labels a larger cut for that matter. All this discussion of poor artists starving due to big bad streaming is ridiculous, it's a business and apple wants their cut of streaming dollars, they couldn't care less if the artists got anything as long as they get theirs.
Starving artist deserve to be paid too
I'm not understanding your point here. Its okay then for starving start up musicians to be denied fair payment for their work because you want free everything because... taylor swift?
I have a genuine question about Apple streaming music. If Apple has a built-in streaming service, with Siri integration, playlists, downloads, genius, the works... Why would I ever buy an album again? The only reason I buy them now is for my favorite music that I ask Siri to play....
But guys seriously, if people like me stop buying albums, my fav Indie bands will suffer.
Apple needs to create incentive for album buyers
But guys seriously, if people like me stop buying albums, my fav Indie bands will suffer.
Apple needs to create incentive for album buyers
Because the other side of "might not" doesn't include the word "not" What's interesting is your understanding of the word "might"
And you think that would be a good thing, if true?When all the dust settles, Apple will, as usual, prevail. Their legal department is deep, to say the least.
So then why is everyone acting like this is Apple's fault if this was always the end game?
My guess is Apple wants to lower the ceiling and raise the floor. I don't see why this is such a problem for everyone. It's what Apple has always done. I fail to see what Spotify has to do with this. I think this is the music industry trying to extort Apple or put the streaming cat back in the bag. it also could be the radio industry fighting against the streaming services which render them almost useless.
If I were Apple I'd sit this one out for awhile until the scrutiny dies down on this. I don't see any upside for them pursuing a streaming service at this point outside of what they already have. They can always come up with one later.
Agree with most of that, but it is sorely misplaced to think that Taylor Swift is sitting in the poor house. Spotify was only one source of income for her and her labels. Apparently not a big enough one
Secondly it is strange that she, and music artists in general keep quoting that "everyone is complaining that music sales are down." The general public isn't complaining about that, it is just all the parties with a vest financial interest that are saying that. The consumer always wants to pay less.
Crap, I mean even artists who continue to refuse to have ANY kind of digital sales for various reasons, like Tool for example, well they are doing JUST FINE, believe you me. Every album platinum. If you make good art, it will sell.