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.
UK iTMS Violating EU Competition Rules?
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ssamani said:
Well, now that's really way OT, but anyway, you can't tell it often enough: the EU is not a toothless body. In the case of Germany, more than half of the laws that pass the German Parliament are directives from Brussels. That means, once the 'toothless Body' has agreed on and passed a new law, EU national Parliaments are given a certain period of time * to make them national law *. There is no place for 'but' or 'wait a minute's, no changes and no arguing. It's fair to assume that in GB European Laws hold the same percentage as in Germany(more or less, I don't know how busy the british Parliament is). BTW, Batman on the Buckingham Palace was really cool ;-)
Apple Store
Apple has a serious issue with discriminating between customers located in different EU states. For iTunes the Brits are paying more than the Germans and the French, but Dutch, Belgians, Danish etc. cannot buy iTunes at all! The same goes for refurbished products: the big Apple webstores have interesting weekly offers, but again customers from the smaller countries are not allowed to buy these.
I had an extensive correspondence with Apple Europe about purchasing a refurbished PowerBook from Belgium. Apple invented all sorts of reasons to deny access to their offer. In the end I happened to call the phone store and discovered that I could buy a refurbished PowerBook from them (and promptly did so!), so the whole issue became moot as far as I was concerned.
Still I persist in thinking that, beyond the legal issue, Apple is harming itself by ignoring customers from smaller EU states.
Apple has a serious issue with discriminating between customers located in different EU states. For iTunes the Brits are paying more than the Germans and the French, but Dutch, Belgians, Danish etc. cannot buy iTunes at all! The same goes for refurbished products: the big Apple webstores have interesting weekly offers, but again customers from the smaller countries are not allowed to buy these.
I had an extensive correspondence with Apple Europe about purchasing a refurbished PowerBook from Belgium. Apple invented all sorts of reasons to deny access to their offer. In the end I happened to call the phone store and discovered that I could buy a refurbished PowerBook from them (and promptly did so!), so the whole issue became moot as far as I was concerned.
Still I persist in thinking that, beyond the legal issue, Apple is harming itself by ignoring customers from smaller EU states.
Sorry to reply to the off topic part of this, but...
Uh, yeah, the sound quality of 128 AAC is much better than 128 MP3. It is NOT even close to CD quality on an audiophile sound system, however. These 128 AAC tracks are nice and small and sound great on an iPod, but they're far from how you're describing them. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that claim with a straight face.
The Red Wolf said:
Uh, yeah, the sound quality of 128 AAC is much better than 128 MP3. It is NOT even close to CD quality on an audiophile sound system, however. These 128 AAC tracks are nice and small and sound great on an iPod, but they're far from how you're describing them. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that claim with a straight face.
Surreal said:
If enough people are complaining to the government then the government has an obligation to look into it. It seems that in this case that the people DO want our government to decide what is unfair. This is of course just as it should be since government should exist solely as a representative of the people of the country and therefore should be doing their general bidding. Government should not be doing whatever corporations tell it too. If corporate executives want to change things then they have a vote just like everyone else.
slash8slash1 said:
Aah, but that's just it. The EU Commission drafts the law and the EU parliament approves it, suggests modifications, rejects it but the parliament has very limited powers to draft legislation. That is why it is toothless.
Also due to the history of the EU as a free trade organisation, rather than a political body, a lot of the trading and financial decisions lie with the Commission, effectively the EU's civil service, overseen by ministers from member states. So basically if member state governments who have been elected largely on politics within their own states, push through tax harmonisation, there will be "Taxation without proper representation". If this happens, Europeans will rise up like the Boston Tea Party. Hopefully.
And I'm a Lib Dem, the most pro-European party in the UK. Anyway, I think we're a little off topic now...
Sanj
swissmann said:
It's pretty easy, you hedge your money at the market, you don't get the spot value of course, but considerably less. As I see it now, UK songs are about 10% more expensive - that's about a rate you can get hedgings for. I guess 10% is just the price the British pay to have their queen on the cash.
iJed said:
Err, corperations do whatever WE tell them to do. If people think that a price is "unfair", they don't buy it. If enough people buy it at that price, then it just means that it's worth it to those people. The government trying to decide what a "fair" price is quite a bit less efficient and quite a bit more kludgy than consumers telling companies what the price should be. Really, who is being taken advantage of here? It's a song for pete's sake, let people make whatever money they can at it...
Isaac
ITR 81 said:
I imagine the UK market for Apple is one of the biggest outside of the USA and (maybe?) Germany. It wouldn't make financial sense to do so unless things got ridiculous, which they won't.
Sabbath said:
And the "second" thing that needs to be taken into account is that the UK has a shorter total duration of protection of a work under Copyright Law than the EU or USA. What this simplisticfally translates into is fewer years in which to return a profitable revenue stream. An analogy that Joe Consumer can understand is that the monthly payment is higher on a 4-year car loan than on a 5-year car loan.
-hh
isaacc7 said:
This is how monopolies or pricing cartels come to be. Legislation is required to prevent these things from happening. What the music industry (and possibly Apple?) are doing is maintaining a regional monopoly in the UK to keep prices artificially high. Movie companies are even more guilty of this where they actively prevent people from playing DVDs, sold in other countries, from working in DVD players throughout the world. I, and I'm pretty sure most other people, cannot see any benefit whatsoever in this policy other than overcharging in some regions. Exactly the same goes for things like PlayStation and Nintendo games. Not exactly very pro-globalisation of these companies is it?
Anyway, if enough people are complaining about something being overpriced then there is a very good chance that it is. Government exists to serve the population of the country and, yes, to make things a fair as reasonably possible. This means that they tax on earnings and by percentage, offer free education, health care, environmental policy, social security, etc. Are all these things not based on what is fair? Without most of these things a country would be a pretty ****** place to live.
I emigrated from the UK yesterday and reading stuff like this i can see why I am so relieved to have left the dismal shores behind. Normally I agree that Consumers need protecting, but in this instance, this is an example of how some Brits cannot stand anyone doing well.
Apple is a US company and they are showing the Brits (and the Europeans )how to do a job properly. That must hurt some. Also, 79p is a pretty generous price compared to what else is on offer, and that does not even accout for the fact that you cant compare like for like as iTMS software is streets ahead of the rest. But still the British consumer rep isnt satisfied. No. Some champion without a cause looks across the water to countries the British consumer basically cant abide and say, oh look at those Frenchies, they have something that seems cheaper than what we have got. Oh no, we'll use the Euro laws we cant abide to see if we cant get some more off the savings Apple have plonked on our laps.
The Consumer Association going after this one is going to upset either 60 million brits or 300 m.
If the Consumer Assoc discovers that the 79p problem lies at the door of Apple for unfair market differentiation, then they should butt out for the sake of our French and German neighbours !!! ie Apple could well be offering UK music at a fair price but subsidising mainland Europe to encourage unenlightened French and German consumers to give itms a go. If the Consumer Association did kick up a big stink about UK prices then Apple shouild bring Europe into line with the currently rerasonable price in rip off Britain. The market in mainland Europe would then decide about iTMS, and probably clamour for a return to their lower prices, and Apple say, we will if you get the laws changed !
If the Consumer Association determine that Apple are profiteering in the UK as they set the download market alight, then Apple will have to rethink their UK strategy to maintain a high volume of sales to more enlightened consumers. If that "Euro friendly price" is too low for Apple in the UK, then adios Apple from the UK. 3 cheers to the Consumers Association for booting out Apple and stunting a massive industry in the making with lots of spin offs for UK companies and small businesses capable of filling iTunes niches.
If the problem is that only a French credit card will get you a cheaper French iTMS track, then get the Consumer Association to talk to the French banks about their policy about dishing out credit cards to Brits.
Basically, why dont the CA just shut up on this one and tilt at another windmill.
Apple is a US company and they are showing the Brits (and the Europeans )how to do a job properly. That must hurt some. Also, 79p is a pretty generous price compared to what else is on offer, and that does not even accout for the fact that you cant compare like for like as iTMS software is streets ahead of the rest. But still the British consumer rep isnt satisfied. No. Some champion without a cause looks across the water to countries the British consumer basically cant abide and say, oh look at those Frenchies, they have something that seems cheaper than what we have got. Oh no, we'll use the Euro laws we cant abide to see if we cant get some more off the savings Apple have plonked on our laps.
The Consumer Association going after this one is going to upset either 60 million brits or 300 m.
If the Consumer Assoc discovers that the 79p problem lies at the door of Apple for unfair market differentiation, then they should butt out for the sake of our French and German neighbours !!! ie Apple could well be offering UK music at a fair price but subsidising mainland Europe to encourage unenlightened French and German consumers to give itms a go. If the Consumer Association did kick up a big stink about UK prices then Apple shouild bring Europe into line with the currently rerasonable price in rip off Britain. The market in mainland Europe would then decide about iTMS, and probably clamour for a return to their lower prices, and Apple say, we will if you get the laws changed !
If the Consumer Association determine that Apple are profiteering in the UK as they set the download market alight, then Apple will have to rethink their UK strategy to maintain a high volume of sales to more enlightened consumers. If that "Euro friendly price" is too low for Apple in the UK, then adios Apple from the UK. 3 cheers to the Consumers Association for booting out Apple and stunting a massive industry in the making with lots of spin offs for UK companies and small businesses capable of filling iTunes niches.
If the problem is that only a French credit card will get you a cheaper French iTMS track, then get the Consumer Association to talk to the French banks about their policy about dishing out credit cards to Brits.
Basically, why dont the CA just shut up on this one and tilt at another windmill.
3 points
3 points here:
1. If this is the price of remaining British and not European, then I'll gladly pay it.
2. If the price is too much or unfair let the consumer, not those do gooders, tell Apple, by not buying the product.
3. I was a builder, people worked for me self employed and they took home between £ 300 & £ 1000 per week depending on how much work they did.
Do gooders came along and said I had to employ these people cards in, because they were protecting the workers rights.
So I paid £ 400 a week and overtime if they wanted it, those that would work well left because they were loosing out, and I was left with those that only did about £ 200 a week worth of work. Pretty soon I closed the firm down. Now who was the winner here.
The point is if Apple are forced to lower prices their only option might be to remove the service from the UK, once again to who's benefit will these do gooders have poked their noses in for.
3 points here:
1. If this is the price of remaining British and not European, then I'll gladly pay it.
2. If the price is too much or unfair let the consumer, not those do gooders, tell Apple, by not buying the product.
3. I was a builder, people worked for me self employed and they took home between £ 300 & £ 1000 per week depending on how much work they did.
Do gooders came along and said I had to employ these people cards in, because they were protecting the workers rights.
So I paid £ 400 a week and overtime if they wanted it, those that would work well left because they were loosing out, and I was left with those that only did about £ 200 a week worth of work. Pretty soon I closed the firm down. Now who was the winner here.
The point is if Apple are forced to lower prices their only option might be to remove the service from the UK, once again to who's benefit will these do gooders have poked their noses in for.
its not about the money its about the trade
You cant be an apple appologist on this; the fact is very simple apple is exploiting the common market by being based in luxembourg. The VAT (sales tax) is much lower in luxembourg; because of the common market and the free movement of services apple can sell from a single place in europe and not have to worry about differing legal requirements.
Having taken advantage of the best bit of the european union they then ignore the simple fact that consumers and industry are legally able to buy goods and services from anywhere in europe without barriers (and the setting up of barriers breaks european law) - imagine apple refusing the good people of oregon from using iTMS and setting up an oregon specific store.
The issue of money is annoying but secondary for me; 79p is too expensive and apples suggestion that they are charging what the people of the UK are willing to pay for music shows that they are a monopolist acting to destroy the markte and should be taken down by the european commission (the big guns)
I gave up on iTunes Music Store as it is too expenslve, the music sounds terrible and apple can change the terms of my use of the music after i have bought it all of which makes CD's (bought from luxembourg) all the more appealing.
You cant be an apple appologist on this; the fact is very simple apple is exploiting the common market by being based in luxembourg. The VAT (sales tax) is much lower in luxembourg; because of the common market and the free movement of services apple can sell from a single place in europe and not have to worry about differing legal requirements.
Having taken advantage of the best bit of the european union they then ignore the simple fact that consumers and industry are legally able to buy goods and services from anywhere in europe without barriers (and the setting up of barriers breaks european law) - imagine apple refusing the good people of oregon from using iTMS and setting up an oregon specific store.
The issue of money is annoying but secondary for me; 79p is too expensive and apples suggestion that they are charging what the people of the UK are willing to pay for music shows that they are a monopolist acting to destroy the markte and should be taken down by the european commission (the big guns)
I gave up on iTunes Music Store as it is too expenslve, the music sounds terrible and apple can change the terms of my use of the music after i have bought it all of which makes CD's (bought from luxembourg) all the more appealing.
compaining about CIS laws ...
Massively off topic defence of uk inland revenue rules for a moment
I cannot believe you are complaining about the CIS. It was brought in to stop people working who shouldn't be, it was to stop builders working on 3 jobs at once and paying tax on one of them, All of which puts books in schools and drugs in hospitals (and guns in iraq - doh.) and gives some pencil pushers some paperwork to fill in. Payroll software is more than capable of taking care of the legwork for you ...
The rest of it the EU bit - the working time laws on holiday are a good thing; making sure that everyone gets paid holiday (something they were supposed to have had since the 50's) - contractors and all; and the UK has never implemented the working hours regulations - well im still working 60 hours a week anyway.
fatfish said:
Massively off topic defence of uk inland revenue rules for a moment
I cannot believe you are complaining about the CIS. It was brought in to stop people working who shouldn't be, it was to stop builders working on 3 jobs at once and paying tax on one of them, All of which puts books in schools and drugs in hospitals (and guns in iraq - doh.) and gives some pencil pushers some paperwork to fill in. Payroll software is more than capable of taking care of the legwork for you ...
The rest of it the EU bit - the working time laws on holiday are a good thing; making sure that everyone gets paid holiday (something they were supposed to have had since the 50's) - contractors and all; and the UK has never implemented the working hours regulations - well im still working 60 hours a week anyway.
Maybe its just so they can pay apple corp 20 p a song for next 100 years?
Afterall get sued for massive amounts does increase your cost of business in a particular country.
Afterall get sued for massive amounts does increase your cost of business in a particular country.
u07ch said:
If you are selling online and don't have shipping issues, then you might as well be based where costs are lowest, that is just business common sense.
And the barriers, such as they are, relate to having to licence copyright material separately in each territory; this has not made it yet to the single market, hopefully it will do so soon. I'm sure Apple would prefer to negotiate these once for the whole of Europe.
And how are they a monopoly? There are other download stores in the UK, mostly charging more than 79p btw, and there are plenty of other ways of purchasing music if you don't wish to download.
What are you talking about ?!!!???!!! - the pricing for ITMS came WAY BEFORE any out of court settlement with Apple Corp.
IF, IF this where the case it would be pretty wrong of Apple Computers to penalies the UK consumers alone in order to fund any out of court settlement.
IF, IF this where the case it would be pretty wrong of Apple Computers to penalies the UK consumers alone in order to fund any out of court settlement.
Golem said:
I haven't seen any suggestion that the OFT or any authority is actually going to do anything. All that has happened is that the Consumers Association (an independent lobby group) has made a complaint. It's no different to any other group of people getting together and deciding they don't like something. The CA will often pick on minor issues that generate publicity, while ignoring much more difficult issues.
iJed said:
Hrmmm. I wonder if I could use this strategy to force Trump to sell me prime property in NYC for fair market value of land in Montana. I could always use some cheap property.
Hickman
But whilst we are off topic
Whilst off topic, the point was that these people who want to interfere in other peoples business in the name of peoples rights, seem to more often than not end up making things worse for the people they claim to be helping. I think most of us realise that these sort of people are generally trying to satisfy a fat salary funded by the tax payer.
But since we are off topic, I think you miss my point in regard of the inland revenue. I have no issue with the CIS scheme, I rather embrace it, my issue is that I'm not allowed to use it, on the basis that the people who worked for me had no rights to holiday pay and pension schemes etc, oh and maybe that the IR were missing out on employers NI.
Take the guy who earns £ 1000 pw because he puts in a few hours o/t and does the job quickly and efficiently. OK so he doesn't get paid for his 4 weeks holiday and he doesn't benefit from a pension scheme, but over the 48 weeks he works he earns £ 48K, how on earth is making him work for say £ 450 pw (with the same few hours of o/t) with holiday pay entitlement in his best interest (52 x 450 =23.4K)
And maybe when he retires he might get a little more benefit/pension, but I have some guys who have invested their extra earnings into houses which they let out, some have £ 1250 a month coming in not only when they retire, but now. Hardly comparable to the pension they'll receive because they go cards in.
And as for the little bit of employers NI the IR miss out on, this is clearly more than compensated by the additional tax raised on the additional (48K-23.4K) earnings.
u07ch said:Massively off topic defence of uk inland revenue rules for a moment
I cannot believe you are complaining about the CIS. It was brought in to stop people working who shouldn't be, it was to stop builders working on 3 jobs at once and paying tax on one of them, All of which puts books in schools and drugs in hospitals (and guns in iraq - doh.) and gives some pencil pushers some paperwork to fill in. Payroll software is more than capable of taking care of the legwork for you ...
The rest of it the EU bit - the working time laws on holiday are a good thing; making sure that everyone gets paid holiday (something they were supposed to have had since the 50's) - contractors and all; and the UK has never implemented the working hours regulations - well im still working 60 hours a week anyway.
Whilst off topic, the point was that these people who want to interfere in other peoples business in the name of peoples rights, seem to more often than not end up making things worse for the people they claim to be helping. I think most of us realise that these sort of people are generally trying to satisfy a fat salary funded by the tax payer.
But since we are off topic, I think you miss my point in regard of the inland revenue. I have no issue with the CIS scheme, I rather embrace it, my issue is that I'm not allowed to use it, on the basis that the people who worked for me had no rights to holiday pay and pension schemes etc, oh and maybe that the IR were missing out on employers NI.
Take the guy who earns £ 1000 pw because he puts in a few hours o/t and does the job quickly and efficiently. OK so he doesn't get paid for his 4 weeks holiday and he doesn't benefit from a pension scheme, but over the 48 weeks he works he earns £ 48K, how on earth is making him work for say £ 450 pw (with the same few hours of o/t) with holiday pay entitlement in his best interest (52 x 450 =23.4K)
And maybe when he retires he might get a little more benefit/pension, but I have some guys who have invested their extra earnings into houses which they let out, some have £ 1250 a month coming in not only when they retire, but now. Hardly comparable to the pension they'll receive because they go cards in.
And as for the little bit of employers NI the IR miss out on, this is clearly more than compensated by the additional tax raised on the additional (48K-23.4K) earnings.
Broadcast/download royalties vary between countries!!
I don't think it's the record labels (although I know it's so easy to point the finger at them for the silly decisions they are making these days).
There are royalties, governing the downloading of music, that vary from country to country.
In the music industry, there are essentially 2 types of royalties , namely for mechanical reproduction (which covers cds and other physical formats), and for broadcast/performance.
Funnily enough, downloading music is covered under broadcasting/perfomance.
These "download" royalties are percentages that vary depending on the end-use of the music product.
Broadcast/performance royalties are typically collected, not by the recording labels themselves (as with the mechanical reproduction royalties), but by performance royalties collection agencies. These agencies then redistribute the royalties to the owners of the rights to the recording in question (The owners are usually the record labels, and in some occasions, the artists. Artists typically transfer their rights to the recording to the record companies with which they are signed up)
There are typically specific collection agencies for each country. (I haven't heard of a pan-european collection agency and I highly doubt its existence).
These collection agencies are independent and have their own royalty-pricing structures.
Thus, for the UK, I suspect, among other things, that the "download" royalties for music is a higher than for France or Germany.
I strongly suspect that varying royalties in each country are the central drivers for the price difference between the UK and France and Germany.
However, I have thought of another driver, and that would be pricing of iTune's tracks. Depending on the existing price-structure of CDs in a country, the local recording companies would be against an iTune track being priced significantly lower, thus cannibalising CD sales. These record companies would then push for iTunes to price their tracks accordingly.
Of course that's a short-sighted fear since the CD, and DVD-A and SACD for that matter, are absolutely being cannibalised by online music sales anyway.
Brize said:
I don't think it's the record labels (although I know it's so easy to point the finger at them for the silly decisions they are making these days).
There are royalties, governing the downloading of music, that vary from country to country.
In the music industry, there are essentially 2 types of royalties , namely for mechanical reproduction (which covers cds and other physical formats), and for broadcast/performance.
Funnily enough, downloading music is covered under broadcasting/perfomance.
These "download" royalties are percentages that vary depending on the end-use of the music product.
Broadcast/performance royalties are typically collected, not by the recording labels themselves (as with the mechanical reproduction royalties), but by performance royalties collection agencies. These agencies then redistribute the royalties to the owners of the rights to the recording in question (The owners are usually the record labels, and in some occasions, the artists. Artists typically transfer their rights to the recording to the record companies with which they are signed up)
There are typically specific collection agencies for each country. (I haven't heard of a pan-european collection agency and I highly doubt its existence).
These collection agencies are independent and have their own royalty-pricing structures.
Thus, for the UK, I suspect, among other things, that the "download" royalties for music is a higher than for France or Germany.
I strongly suspect that varying royalties in each country are the central drivers for the price difference between the UK and France and Germany.
However, I have thought of another driver, and that would be pricing of iTune's tracks. Depending on the existing price-structure of CDs in a country, the local recording companies would be against an iTune track being priced significantly lower, thus cannibalising CD sales. These record companies would then push for iTunes to price their tracks accordingly.
Of course that's a short-sighted fear since the CD, and DVD-A and SACD for that matter, are absolutely being cannibalised by online music sales anyway.