Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But what are these “tactics”? I’m interested in seeing what the real details are.

So far it seems to amount to Apple saying “do an Amazon special promo, OR do an iTunes special promo (like those top banners), but not both at once.”

Either way the label chooses, Apple’s still selling the music, and not telling anyone not to sell on Amazon as well (which would be absurd). Is Apple obligated to specially promote an artist at the same time Amazon does?

Certainly these promotional efforts affect sales, they’re not meaningless. But are they so vital that they amount to Apple crushing Amazon?



iTunes is not just music—not for a long time now. It’s also software—including OS updates for your devices. It’s the desktop hub that your device was designed to work with. That’s why you need an account. I don’t think this case has any bearing on that particular gripe.


It is the fact that Apple will threaten to pull those banner from the music industry if they go for Amazon promotion. That is strong arming tactics.

Some of the same tactics Microsoft pulled and got busted for in the past. If one of their OEM used an OS other than MS they would get their discount pulled on them. Now that they have been busted for it a few times you are starting to see linux offered by some OEM. You see this mostly in the server market. For consumer computers you will only really see linux on a netbook.

Or you can go with the stunts Intel pulls which is if some one offer AMD dells Intel offers the company are reduced or shipments get "delayed". In this example AMD could offer sweet heart dells to companies not to use Intel but AMD has so little market share they can and should be allowed to do it. Intel should be banned from it.

Remember when you are the big dog and the number 1 player the rules are different than if you are one of the under dogs. Apple is great at playing the under dog but they can not adjusted to being the number 1 player in a market. The rules are very different and apple needs to get busted for it.
 
I personally hope the feds find a way to throw the book at Apple. I think Apple has too much control with iTunes and them tying it to more and more things is frankly getting annoying. The fact that you can't initially use an iPad without an iTunes account is lame. The same thing with my iPod touch. I don't even have any music on the thing but yet I've been forced to use iTunes. For the record I only use Pandora on it and other applications. Before we know it you're going to need to have an iTunes account just to register your Apple computers.
Is there a particular reason why you'd like to get help from the government rather than using some combination of Android, Amazon, Windows, Sandisk, Zune etc.?
 
It is the fact that Apple will threaten to pull those banner from the music industry if they go for Amazon promotion. That is strong arming tactics.
Front page is a valuable and limited resource. Any company should have the right to reserve that resource for items that will bring in the most revenue. If the partner is selling the same item at a lower price at a competitor, it will not bring in as much revenue, as many customers will buy it from there despite the promotional efforts. It makes more sense to promote something else, where there is not any price disadvantage. Apple does not change its commission based on whether the song is sold elsewhere, not even whether it is sold cheaper elsewhere. It has a very limited front page space and if it is not allowed to decide how to allocate that resource, what is the point of owning that storefront?
 
People keep telling me in other threads that there's NO WAY the Justice Department would EVER go after a tiny little company that only holds 30% of a given market. That couldn't possibly be worthy of any antitrust case and therefore Apple's virtual monopoly on hardware for OSX (which is a large portion of overall hardware sales relative to other manufacturers' share, especially above the $1000 point, but only a small part of the overall worldwide operating system share). Here we have nearly the same situation and yet there's interest from the justice department.

How strange. Could it be that certain companies (i.e. the music industry) are complaining far and wide about how unfair Apple's iTunes store unfairly is so popular? I see no case because the exact same music is available elsewhere online (ok it's in MP3 format not AAC) is available from someone like Amazon (where I buy my music these days, since it's usually 30 cents cheaper for the same song). Contrast this to the hardware computer market where I have NO choices for hardware except from Apple if I want to run the OSX operating system. Clearly, the latter is a far larger imbalance in fairness to consumers. But I gather the justice department (like the rest of the increasingly obviously massively corrupt U.S. government) only cares about what's "fair" to large corporations, not consumers or small businesses. How amusing. :rolleyes:
 
i still buy vinyl.

it can be cheaper in many cases, and sounds much better when you take care of it.

Though I will say that I found it pretty inconvenient to carry more than 50 records with me at a time, in addition to the hand-cranked gramophone.
 
People keep telling me in other threads that there's NO WAY the Justice Department would EVER go after a tiny little company that only holds 30% of a given market. That couldn't possibly be worthy of any antitrust case and therefore Apple's virtual monopoly on hardware for OSX (which is a large portion of overall hardware sales relative to other manufacturers' share, especially above the $1000 point, but only a small part of the overall worldwide operating system share). Here we have nearly the same situation and yet there's interest from the justice department.

How strange. Could it be that certain companies (i.e. the music industry) are complaining far and wide about how unfair Apple's iTunes store unfairly is so popular? I see no case because the exact same music is available elsewhere online (ok it's in MP3 format not AAC) is available from someone like Amazon (where I buy my music these days, since it's usually 30 cents cheaper for the same song). Contrast this to the hardware computer market where I have NO choices for hardware except from Apple if I want to run the OSX operating system. Clearly, the latter is a far larger imbalance in fairness to consumers. But I gather the justice department (like the rest of the increasingly obviously massively corrupt U.S. government) only cares about what's "fair" to large corporations, not consumers or small businesses. How amusing. :rolleyes:


You have to remember how to define the market. It is more going to be look at as ONLY online downloads which apple is at 70% of the market in that. 70% is by far large enough to strong arm everyone.

Front page is a valuable and limited resource. Any company should have the right to reserve that resource for items that will bring in the most revenue. If the partner is selling the same item at a lower price at a competitor, it will not bring in as much revenue, as many customers will buy it from there despite the promotional efforts. It makes more sense to promote something else, where there is not any price disadvantage. Apple does not change its commission based on whether the song is sold elsewhere, not even whether it is sold cheaper elsewhere. It has a very limited front page space and if it is not allowed to decide how to allocate that resource, what is the point of owning that storefront?

That is the argument apple could try but at the same time if it is discovered that when the song is sold competing head to head with Amazon deal the lost sells is minor to apple then no real lost there.

Record companies are going to loss huge chunks of sells by going with Amazon and apple removing front page support. This is effectively keeping them from doing the deal with Amazon.
Remember Apple can not use its market power to keep competition from coming in. Right now consumers are getting screwed by how Apple is acting.
 
I wish iTunes wasn't so tied into iDevices. I understand Apple wants to streamline their software with the hardware to make it easy top transfer media. However, iTunes seems to be less about music and more about the App Store everyday. I like it when it was just a simple media player (1-6) and not an app-hub.
 
Though I will say that I found it pretty inconvenient to carry more than 50 records with me at a time, in addition to the hand-cranked gramophone.

While analogue formats can be, in principle, flawless, in practice they are not of limitless quality.

Vinyl has a dynamic range of about 80dB, whereas CD Digital Audio (aka "Red Book") has a dynamic range of about 96.7dB. Groove definition deteriorates slightly each time the stylus runs through, weakening the accuracy of reproduction with every playback. Additionally, groove compression occurs in recording when the master stylus puts pressure on each concentric groove of the spiral, creating a different frequency response from the inner to the outer platter--even from the left to the right channel! Not to mention the conventional tone arm and belt turntable will experience a slight shift in RPMs as the stylus travels from the edge to the center.

Digital recording and reproduction systems, by contrast, offer far more stability, where internal reclocking of the signal guarantees constant playback speed, where the medium itself doesn't introduce a noticeable noise floor and thus allows greater dynamic range. Digital formats beyond CD Digital Audio (16 bit Linear PCM), such as 24-bit Linear PCM (DVD-Audio, HD Audio) carry the abilities of digital even further beyond the threshold of human perception... but even for critical listening, 16-bit LPCM has a fidelity, clarity and dynamic range unmatched by any consumer-available analogue playback medium.

The "warm" sound of vinyl is really inaccurate reproduction as a result of a sharply elevated noise floor. Of two recordings mastered equally well, the digital master will sound vastly superior to the analogue for this reason alone... particularly evident in highly dynamic genres such as classical, jazz and others that, ironically, seem to attract vinyl enthusiasts. They couldn't pick a medium more poorly suited to the nuances of Dave Brubeck, John Coltrane, Miles Davis or Ahmad Jamal recordings.

Where the difference is relatively moot is in more recent sound recordings in pop and rock, where amplitude pumping has become so commonplace, it doesn't matter how pristine a medium you use... the original recording has no dynamics, always pegging the needle. You could be listening to it recorded on crumpled wax paper, edited with a potato peeler and played back through garbage cans (with little B&W stickers on them if you like) and it would sound just as good.
 
I have bought most music formats over the ages, from vinyl through 8-tracks and cassette on to CDs but I doubt I will ever buy another CD. I seem to have entered the no-longer-want-to-collect-stuff phase of my life, at least when it comes to physical collections so it will probably be digital downloads for here on out--just bought "Sea of Cowards" yesterday.
 
I have bought most music formats over the ages, from vinyl through 8-tracks and cassette on to CDs but I doubt I will ever buy another CD. I seem to have entered the no-longer-want-to-collect-stuff phase of my life, at least when it comes to physical collections so it will probably be digital downloads for here on out--just bought "Sea of Cowards" yesterday.

I haven't purchased a physical CD in probably 5 years. Haven't purchased a physical DVD in 2 or 3. No, I don't pirate, either. I really believe that removable media is a dying breed thanks to the internet, though it'll always have a niche where information needs to remain secured and "off the grid".
 
I've been an itunes user for 4 years and it is a dream to use. Never a problem.
It is so elegant and sooooooooo easy to use. The public has spoken. Bam!
You go Apple!!!!!!
But we all know that other folks in the industry don't want to spend the money doing it like Apple. They just to piggyback off of them for a free lunch.
**** them!!!!
 
70% of music downloads = 28% of physical music sales in the US !? Well clearly there must be some mistake because people keep telling me that physical media is already dead. :rolleyes:
 
So wait...

Don't these numbers mean that a lot of people still buy physical music? (as opposed to download) I haven't bought a CD in...5 years!
 
I wish iTunes wasn't so tied into iDevices. I understand Apple wants to streamline their software with the hardware to make it easy top transfer media. However, iTunes seems to be less about music and more about the App Store everyday. I like it when it was just a simple media player (1-6) and not an app-hub.

it much more than all of that. it aswell has your contacts ,email ect

and books with audiobooks also.

and podcasts and movies,tv


list continues
 
No, read up on monopolies. Consumers can be punished by dominant monopolies by price fixing and stifling competition. Apple SHOULD try to become as successful as possible, but not to the detriment of me or you.
Lots of comments about Apple's music prices. I wonder if people realize 1) Apple makes little off the iTunes store (relative to their business) and Steve Jobs has been pushing hard to keep prices low; 2) that the higher prices were pushed by the music industry, and set by the music industry; 3) that lower prices at competing services are the music industry trying to push promince from iTunes (they don't like Apple having so much control).

People need to keep this in mind when talking (or whining) about "Apple's prices."
 
Oh what an evil terrible company to be successful and making money. I hope the government gets involved and takes it over soon.


that was sarcasm for those that can't tell.
 
People keep telling me in other threads that there's NO WAY the Justice Department would EVER go after a tiny little company that only holds 30% of a given market. That couldn't possibly be worthy of any antitrust case and therefore Apple's virtual monopoly on hardware for OSX (which is a large portion of overall hardware sales relative to other manufacturers' share, especially above the $1000 point, but only a small part of the overall worldwide operating system share). Here we have nearly the same situation and yet there's interest from the justice department.

How strange. Could it be that certain companies (i.e. the music industry) are complaining far and wide about how unfair Apple's iTunes store unfairly is so popular? I see no case because the exact same music is available elsewhere online (ok it's in MP3 format not AAC) is available from someone like Amazon (where I buy my music these days, since it's usually 30 cents cheaper for the same song). Contrast this to the hardware computer market where I have NO choices for hardware except from Apple if I want to run the OSX operating system. Clearly, the latter is a far larger imbalance in fairness to consumers. But I gather the justice department (like the rest of the increasingly obviously massively corrupt U.S. government) only cares about what's "fair" to large corporations, not consumers or small businesses. How amusing. :rolleyes:

The difference is that Apple has a small market share on all computers. While the competition is qualatively different, its still there. You don't have to buy an Apple computer, or use OSX, to have a computer with essentially the same functionality. This is how cable companies can have a monopoly on a geographic region, even to the exclusion of other cable companies (my town has one co. for in town and another for the surrounding rural county). How? Because satellite offers the competition.

Now, if you could only download music on iTunes, and could not get it any other way (even if in a slightly different format), then iTunes would be an illegal monopoly. However, seen in this light, the argument really doesn't hold water. Clearly there are other ways of getting music, even compressed downloaded digital music. And Amazon is not the only other game in town. So, even if the Justice Department reviews this, I doubt much will come of it for now. Additionally, Apple controlling their front page advertisement of select products on iTunes does not affect ultimate availability; thus, allowable.
 
No, Please read the article - 28% is the number cited for total music sales (digital and CD based)

Oops, thanks, yes you're right of course - I did actually read it and understand it, I just wrote the wrong word in the crucial place, it should have read:

'70% of music downloads = 28% of total music sales in the US !?'

My point remains though, I think it makes a mockery of the suggestion by many that physical media is already 'dead'. Every time a thread comes up about Blu-ray for instance, people who say they aren't interested in it say 'physical media is dead', but if downloads of relatively smaller music files only account for less than half of all music sales, I think it's fair to say that we are still some years off physical media being 'dead' when it comes to movies.
 
'70% of music downloads = 28% of total music sales in the US !?'

My point remains though, I think it makes a mockery of the suggestion by many that physical media is already 'dead'. Every time a thread comes up about Blu-ray for instance, people who say they aren't interested in it say 'physical media is dead', but if downloads of relatively smaller music files only account for less than half of all music sales, I think it's fair to say that we are still some years off physical media being 'dead' when it comes to movies.

Excellent point! If 28% of all music sales is 70% of downloads, that means that downloads are 40% of the total market. I bet the market share for downloaded video is much much less. We should have the option to play BluRay on our Macs.

BTW. love the sig and avatar
 
You have to remember how to define the market. It is more going to be look at as ONLY online downloads which apple is at 70% of the market in that. 70% is by far large enough to strong arm everyone.

I don't see how. The consumer is able to get the same product from someone else quite easily. The law states quite clearly that if a company achieves a "monopoly" (and Apple has NOT done that) by purely popular means (i.e. consumers simply like getting the product best from that company) and they are not impeding others (anti-competition), then the monopoly is legal. Here we have a situation where Apple has the market purely by popularity. There is nothing stopping anyone from buying a digital download from someone like Amazon or from other companies from starting their own digital downloads (e.g. Walmart even tried it, but they didn't get any traction; whose fault is that, exactly?)

Whereas I get no choice at all about being able to buy my Mac hardware from anyone but Apple and this is purely an artificial construct (i.e. contract) and thus is 100% anti-competitive. Whereas here they have 70% of the digital download share, Apple has 100% of the hardware for OSX share. They have 91% of $1000+ hardware (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624 ) and over 30% of the profit share of revenue (http://www.businessinsider.com/char...erating-profit-share-of-top-pc-vendors-2010-3).

Thus once again, I say if the justice department is going to investigate Apple for antitrust violations on something where there IS consumer choice for the SAME EXACT PRODUCT, then surely they should be looking at Apple where it is stifling the consumer's choice of hardware completely (again for those that want OSX by either choice or need). If this was by design, it might be one thing, but there are no technical reasons OSX can't run on say a Dell computer (e.g. I'm running it on one myself).

That is the argument apple could try but at the same time if it is discovered that when the song is sold competing head to head with Amazon deal the lost sells is minor to apple then no real lost there.

Record companies are going to loss huge chunks of sells by going with Amazon and apple removing front page support. This is effectively keeping them from doing the deal with Amazon.
Remember Apple can not use its market power to keep competition from coming in. Right now consumers are getting screwed by how Apple is acting.

I don't follow what you are saying. Maybe you could restate it. It sounds like you're saying that Apple is threatening to remove "ads" for a given song or album off their store page if another company is allowed to sell the same song or album online. If that is the case and Apple is actually doing that, there might be a case as that is abusing market power (very similar to Microsoft refusing to sell at OEM rates to those that are selling machines with another OS installed on it and/or charging them a fee even if Windows wasn't on it). But beyond that, Apple is allowed to put on its store whatever it wants (e.g. a brick and mortar store might put a Led Zep poster on the wall; what has that got to do with anything? I go to a store to buy a song I'm looking for, not to browse ads).

The difference is that Apple has a small market share on all computers.

They have a small share of the overall installed *OS* market, but compared to other companies selling *HARDWARE*, their share is ANYTHING but small (see above links for Apple's profits in hardware compared to the competition and their share of $1000+ hardware). There's nothing "small" about them. The important thing here is to compare Apples to Apples (literally). You can say that buying a Windows machine is "equivalent functionality" but I think we both know that people don't buy a "Mac" because they think there's ANYTHING "equivalent" about the two operating systems. And if you already have a Mac software base or your company requires Mac software, you HAVE to buy Apple hardware whether you "like" what Apple has to offer (regardless of price, which is WAY high compared to the "competition" running another OS).

The point is if you are comparing music sales, you have to have pretty similar performance and the same song or it doesn't matter. MP3 and AAC are close enough in performance at 256kbit that they could be considered audibly equivalent and obviously the songs are the same. But if I compare a Mac Pro to a Dell Tower and they're not running the same software, that would be like comparing iTunes to Amazon but not looking at the same song. WTF is the point? That Dell hardware I desire (for either features or price) won't do me a bit of good if I need to run Final Cut Pro. They are simply NOT equivalent markets because they do not run/do the same thing. Apple is forbidding competition in their hardware market for OSX so they can keep ALL of the profits and THAT is why their profit margins are through the roof in the graph on that link above. They effectively have NO competition for hardware sales to those that want OSX.

If you want Windows (or Linux), you have several hardware vendors competing for your business. If you want OSX, you have Apple and that means VERY limited choices at highly inflated prices (e.g. no mid-range or low-end towers with expandability at ANY price; they simply do not exist and the Mac Pro is currently MASSIVELY overpriced for the horrible hardware you get; I mean a $2500 computer with a 640GB hard drive (a 1.5TB 7200 Seagate drive costs maybe $100 at most) and 3GB of ram (Apple's ram prices are notorious)? WTF!?!? Increase that to a mere two 1TB drives (so you have a backup) and 6GB of ram and you're pushing $3050!!! That's for a quad-core with a completely outdated graphics card. Want the ATI 4870 card? Add another $200 to the price for $3250 price and the card is STILL horribly outdated. Do you realize what kind of system I could build for a mere $1000-1200 today? It would run circles around the default $2500 Mac Pro in almost all areas. But what choice do you have if you want a Mac with some power and don't want to hack? NONE. You're stuck with Windows or Linux.

I'm sorry, but that's PATHETIC and worse yet it's really bad publicity for the "Mac" market (i.e. no value). And I say it violates the Clayton Antitrust Law "tying" clause. There is no doubt they violated the clause in the "tying" sense. There isn't even an argument to be made there. The law is quite clear that no contracts shall impede competition by forcing the sale of another item. The only question is whether Apple's hardware market share and anti-competition is having a "significant economic effect" or not. Looking at Apple's profit graph linked above compared to the other companies earning a pittance by comparison, I don't see how ANYONE in their right mind could argue that Apple isn't having a "significant economic effect" on that market, especially in light of the case they are looking into (the music sales), which are <30% of the overall music market and so I don't see how having over 30% of the profits of the computer hardware market does NOT qualify as "significant" and therefore a violation of Clayton.

The only difference I see is that Psystar was a tiny business whereas the music industry has huge clout and would sue the pants off anyone at the drop of a pin. Obviously, the justice department responds to that kind of pressure and probably doesn't even know Psystar ever existed (just some back-water judge that threw their countersuit case out without even really looking at it). Only BIG FISH get to play in the U.S. these days. Small businesses and consumers don't matter. They don't have enough cash to bribe Congress and the Justice Department compared to large corporations which have been recently cleared to put out unlimited advertising funds and are considered legally to be people. No wonder Disney thinks that their copyrights will NEVER EVER expire. That's because the corporation cannot "die" and so therefore the clause NEVER EVER takes effect. The Supreme Court have dug the consumers graves on that one. Hey, maybe Microsoft will run for President? :eek:
 
Because it has 70% of the digital trade and can conceivably raise barriers to competitors in the digital arena (and has arguably done so).

That's not hard to figure out.

So, how is our Government doing with the Barriers put up by the Chinese every day?

Sour Grapes / Pissing and Moaning. Let's focus on the fact that our National Debt is 53% of GDP now. This type of spending is foolish. :apple:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.