Apple Facing New Antitrust Investigation

mantis2009 writes "After recent complaints of anti-competitive behavior, the US Department of Justice has opened an inquiry into Apple's business practices for selling music. Investigators have specifically asked whether Apple colluded with record labels to thwart Amazon.com's music download store, according to the ever-present anonymous 'people briefed on the situation.' Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks." So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.

Comments

so wait

[DeadJesusRodeo]

So it's illegal if a company fails to promote an artist or product? Really DoJ? Really? Oh shit - I'm going to club fed for sure. I didn't shill for Lady Gaga today. Crap!

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Microlith]

Apologists for Microsoft always rush to the "bbbbut Apple!" defense but there's a distinct difference here:

- Microsoft held and continues to hold a -de facto- monopoly on desktop operating systems. Were they to revoke OEM pricing for Windows they could easily send a PC manufacturer into unprofitable territory.
- Microsoft did just that over Netscape, BeOS, and likely others to retain their position and push their products.
- They were convicted of this in Federal court.

So as it stands, Microsoft has to play by different rules. The comparisons are not fair.

Unless, perhaps, Apple gains dominance in a market to the point that their denial of services or manipulation of terms would be detrimental to the targeted party unless complied with. At which an investigation could begin and if found to be a monopoly, Apple would have to start playing under those same rules. Chances are this would follow with a trial and if convicted Apple would end up under the government's thumb for some time.

Again, they don't (yet) play under the same rules. Can't pull that argument yet though.

Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.

Microsoft would be just as evil as Apple, they just got caught.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[twidarkling]

So as it stands, Microsoft has to play by different rules. The comparisons are not fair.

That's right. Apple's simply better at it. They disguised their monopoly, and profited off it longer. Why do you think Apple's always pushed its elitist standard? To make it seem more niche, to avoid exactly what happened to Microsoft. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to lock an iPod or iPhone or iAnything to only use iTunes, except to promote hegemony. Sure, they could *optimize* their stuff to work best with their software. That's how it should be. But if I want to use Windows Media Player, or VLC, then I should be able to.

So, you can call me a Microsoft apologist, and I can call you Jobs' personal fluffer, but in the end, I just want companies playing by the same rules, and you'll still be a cocksucker.

Guess MSFT doesn't like being Number Two

[WillAffleckUW]

Interesting what happens when Microsoft loses the top spot.

They get lawyers to go sue other, more successful, more innovative firms.

Sore losers.

Re:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[Draek]

So... Amazon got first and only dibs to specific songs, thus restricting competition, and Apple is using monopoly power to tell music distributors not to do that?

Yeah. Since Amazon doesn't hold a controlling share of the digital music market, they're free to do that. Apple isn't.

Kinda how Apple is able to shove their browser and video player down your throat when you install their music player, but Microsoft can't bundle IE with Windows.

Re:Maybe

[pandrijeczko]

Let me emphasise that for you:

Microsoft bought $150M worth of non-voting shares.

There's your answer.

The reason wasn't altruism, either. Microsoft did it to settle a court-case (along with granting Apple access to a broad base of MS patents) because they were about to be taken to the cleaners by Apple. MS also had to promise to keep developing MS Office for 5 years. Back when Office was important to Apple, that was a big deal.

Yeah, blah blah blah blah... sorry, I'm a techie simpleton with as much business acumen as a potato. Microsoft pumped $150M into Apple at a time when they really needed it. End of.

It's always best to use facts to win arguments, rather than wishful thinking, I find.

Wow! I've used YOUR facts against YOU and won the argument. How cool is that?

Oh, and congratulations on figuring out the play on words in my signature.

Thanks, it IS rather cool, isn't it.

Since you clearly are a Microsoft fanboi, though, I'm surprised at your direct and honest approach. Kudos to you and your hard-on, sir.

Actually, I thank you very much for that comment, and let me explain why... I work as a technical security consultant for a telecoms company with a portfolio of products of which about 90% run on Linux. I test and secure those products and a major part of my role is (and here's your clue) writing SHELL, PERL and PYTHON scripts to do data analysis on those servers. And when I get home of an evening, I have my dinner then sit in front of my *GENTOO LINUX* desktop machine and occasionally stream music or videos from my *GENTOO LINUX* server. Sometimes, I sit with my missus in front of the TV and talk to her but because I don't watch much TV, I sit there surfing the Internet and getting up fanbois noses on my *GENTOO LINUX* netbook.

Have you got the message yet???

Actually, I do use a bit of Windows XP also (and I actually quite like it if I'm honest) but the reason I'm so grateful for your comment is because I have achieved my goal of not being a rabid Linux fanboi as your incorrect assumption clearly shows.

So well done and I'm off to bed now to revel not only in my victorious argument over you but also to pat myself on the back for not being the Linux equivalent of what you are.

Nighty night!