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

Maybe

[Space cowboy]

Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT (219.18B) by having a market cap of 222.07B.

To give an idea of the scale of that achievement, Apple's share price has climbed about 560% in the past five years. Microsoft's is up 4%. Sure, market cap isn't a hugely useful measure (beyond bragging rights) of the value a company brings, but the trend is an interesting one, at least for Apple shareholders

Simon.

Re:Maybe

[Strudelkugel]

As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...) Do I think Apple really is a monopoly? No. But I never thought Microsoft was a monopoly, either.

Apple fans should hope Apple has better attorneys than Microsoft had when dealing with the DoJ. If Apple doesn't play ball with the DoJ, it will become a hamstrung corporate slushy, just like Microsoft did.

Re:Maybe

[WankersRevenge]

Reminds of Forest Gump when Forest says he invested in a "fruit" company that turns out to be Apple. If people invested their money into Apple right after that movie came out, they'd be living like Gump themselves right now.

Re:Maybe

[pushing-robot]

Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT (219.18B) by having a market cap of 222.07B.

That also gives Apple the second largest market cap period, behind only Exxon Mobil (278.64B). Rather incredible, since Apple only nudged into the top five last quarter and the top ten the quarter before that.

Re:Maybe

[Darkness404]

it will become a hamstrung corporate slushy, just like Microsoft did.

All the DOJ did was say "yep MS, you are a monopoly", the damage was already done. Microsoft managed to squash Netscape, BeOS, and all of their established competitors from the '90s.

Other than making MS more subtle in their EEE tactics, the ruling didn't do too much. Microsoft managed to come out on top with the DOJ hearings, yeah they got a stern talking to and some bad PR, but look at post-hearing MS, it was doing remarkably well and not losing marketshare till the disaster of Vista.

Apple has a lot more to fear than MS did. Apple doesn't supply the OS for most of the government's computers, MS does.

Re:Maybe

[Darkness404]

Yeah, and had the scare of their lives in the mid to late '90s when Apple was failing.

From the launch of Windows 95 till the success of the iPod and OS X in 2003, Apple was a joke. No one would have been advised to invest in it.

Yeah, the iPod and OS X and switching to x86 and iTunes have made Apple fashionable again, but for a while in the mid '90s, Apple was worthless. It lacked a decent OS, Windows was gaining, etc.

Re:Maybe

[evilbessie]

Err, why not get the Europeans to sort out this mess? They actually manage to do something* about Microsoft... *It could have been better, I grant you but they have effectively forced their hand on opening up protocols and standards. There is however more time which needs to pass, not quite sure how much though.

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...)

The word you're looking for is 'proprietary' not 'monopoly'. You'll notice in the FS that it's about putting a competitor out of business as opposed to keeping people on their platform, which is what you just described.

Re:Maybe

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Reminds of Forest Gump when Forest says he invested in a "fruit" company that turns out to be Apple. If people invested their money into Apple right after that movie came out, they'd be living like Gump themselves right now.

It's just mind-blowing what you could do if you had 20 years of hindsight 20 years ago.

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing. Apple hasn't been found guilty of anything yet. DOJ is opening an investigation. Apple didn't tell the labels not to sell to amazon, it allegedley pressured them to not give exclusives to Amazon. I see a big distinction there. If Apple has a monopoly, it is in music marketing (but walmart and amazon are still pretty formidable) and in music players only. RIM is still a bigger player than Apple in Smartphones so no monopoly there. Microsoft still holds the monopoly on Desktop operating systems, and in office productivity software. And Microsoft was not found guilty of being a monopoly but of using monopoly power to squeeze competitiors out. It's a long reach to put Apple in the same place. Or even as bad as what Intel did to AMD.

Re:Maybe

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...You DO know that Apple owns over 90% of the HDD based PMPs and more than 70% of ALL PMPs, yes? And since we are talking about music I'd find it hard for anyone to say that Apple was anything BUT a monopoly in that field.

I don't see how their lock in with iTMS and using that lock in to hamstring competitors is ANY different than MSFT using Windows to kill Netscape. So I'm sorry Apple fanboys if old Steve is using iTMS to screw over competitors they need to be busted. How is this any different from MSFT or Intel screwing those that refuse to play ball? MSFT said "Want good prices on windows? Screw BeOS and anybody else that wants to sell a desktop" while Intel said "Want a good deal on chips? Screw AMD and take this Netburst and like it" while Apple is saying "Want to be on iTMS? Screw Amazon". I don't see ANY difference in the tactics.

Just because old Steve has good taste doesn't mean he can screw his competitors with monopolistic behavior, hence the investigation. If the allegations are true it seems pretty open and shut to me. And before any fanboys scream "MSFT shill!" I would point out that to this day I STILL think MSFT should have been broken up. Too much power concentrated into a single company is never good for the market.

Re:Maybe

[AmigaMMC]

It will get to that, for example: According to European law, people have the right to remove the batteries off a device and buy 3rd party... something Apple is not kin to do as they make way too much money in battery and replacement service.

Re:Maybe

[pandrijeczko]

Funny that, because their share price wasn't doing so well when Microsoft pumped money into Apple to keep them solvent just a few years ago.

Re:Maybe

[die444die]

Uhhh...You DO know that Apple owns over 90% of the HDD based PMPs and more than 70% of ALL PMPs, yes?

Woah, they should start selling some of those. I can't imagine why they'd be sitting on that many of them.

Re:Maybe

[ColdWetDog]

So, replace the battery. There are literally hundreds of third party solutions to the 'sealed' battery in your iWhatever. Instead of screwdriver, you need a plastic spud. Not exactly the end of the world.

Re:Maybe

[jpmorgan]

Sign up for an 40+ singles cruise?

Re:Maybe

[Space cowboy]

[sigh] Microsoft bought $150M worth of non-voting shares. Which they've since sold (at a handsome profit, although if they'd waited they'd have made more money). Apple had billions in the bank at the time, so it's hardly "keep them solvent".

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.

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

[sarcasm]Oh, and congratulations on figuring out the play on words in my signature. That's what I was missing - people will be able to understand it now.... [/sarcasm]. 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.

Simon

Re:Maybe

[MidnightBrewer]

I don't have a problem with Apple requiring their hardware in order to run their software (there are so many other competing companies who don't, so there's no lock-in), or their software to run their iPads, iPhones, etc. (again, this describes any company who produces hardware that interfaces with another system; they're called drivers). Any computer you buy is loaded with software put on there by the vendor, so again, not an issue; at least the stuff Apple gives you has a good reputation and isn't crippleware contingent upon paying for an upgrade. My only real complaint is the continued bad relationship of Apple with third-party video card manufacturers, who sell identical hardware to Apple and Windows customers but charge *three times as much* for the former. Now that's abuse.

Re:Maybe

[Runaway1956]

"As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products,"

I see a hint of hypocrisy here. You complain that they are to powerful, but you support them with your hard earned cash money. If they are bad, why do you give them money?

BTW - I've taught my kid properly. He bought a USED iPod, and immediately jailbroke the damned thing. He uses it as he wishes. He sent no money to Apple, and he got exactly what he wanted, and uses it in exactly the way he wishes. At this point in time, I believe he is aiming at an Android next. Of course, he has more plans than money, so he may or may not have an Android in his future. ;^)

Re:Maybe

[Strudelkugel]

Apple has a lot to fear because you never know what will happen in court, if it gets to that. Judge Jackson considered the drive space used by IE DLLs an example of monopolistic behavior, because consumers were deprived of the use of that space, no matter how minuscule it was. He had a number of other reasons that were quite questionable, too. Didn't matter though.

A good prosecutor could have a field day with Apple's marketing tactics in music, books, hardware and software sales. Probably the app store, too. No doubt they are smart enough to settle, but who knows what DoJ might demand. If they decide to go to court, anything can happen.

Re:Maybe

[Space cowboy]

Yeah, blah blah blah blah... sorry, I'm a techie simpleton with as much business acumen as a potato

Yes, you do have, don't you ? Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit either. If you have billions in the bank, 150 million isn't a huge amount of money. So, in small, simple words:

Microsoft did not bail out Apple

... which somewhat refutes your claim to have "won" the argument in any meaningful way.

As for "winning" by using your nice open-source operating system, look, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I've contributed to Linux, to gcj, to PHP, to any number of other smaller projects. I've written my own multi-tasking operating system for the 8-bit AVR, and opened up the source; I wrote a virtual memory system for the nintendo DS in the homebrew arena, and gave away the source; just because I thought it was cool, I bought an FPGA kit, designed a 32-bit CPU in verilog, tested it in the FPGA, wrote an assembler, C compiler, and linker for it, and opened up the source until I found students were cheating using the code; I wrote frameworks for the PS2 linux kit and gave them away as open-source; I set up and ran hostip.info as a community-based geolocation system, again opening up the database and website as open-source; I've been using linux since it came on root- and boot-floppies; I've written filesystems (a filesystem view of an application's database) and device-drivers ( linked up my EP2002H circuit engraver to a linux host and written gerber interpolation routines to translate to M-code.). I have in fact set up three businesses all based on Open Source, and sold two of them at great profit, then moved on to something new. I could go on, and on...

In short, I've been there, done that, and almost all of it was open source. That which wasn't, paid the bills to fund that which was.

Oh, and congratulations on figuring out the play on words in my signature. Thanks, it IS rather cool, isn't it.

Not particularly. It was mind-numbingly obvious to the meanest of intelligences. You, on the other hand appear to be proud of determining it. Oh dear.

Simon.

Re:Maybe

[shutdown -p now]

There are literally hundreds of third party solutions to the 'sealed' battery in your iWhatever.

All of them void the warranty.

Re:Maybe

[TrancePhreak]

I'm sorry, but Netscape squashed itself. At the time IE was far less bloated and buggy.

Re:Maybe

[Aklyon]

All of them void the warranty.

You actually saw legalese on the warranty of your iDevice? all I saw was "F you, Now pay for a replacement part or pay for a replacement iDevice. Or you could use some other mp3 player, but none of them will work with iTunes so you're stuck with us anyway!"

Re:Maybe

[Lars T.]

Funny that, because their share price wasn't doing so well when Microsoft pumped money into Apple to keep them solvent just a few years ago.

Yeah, $150 Million, when Apple only had $1.2 in cash. What a float. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

Re:Maybe

[fast turtle]

The Antitrust Laws in the United States "Do NOT"Require you to have a monopoly in any field in order to be subjected to them What they do require is that you have a "Dominant"Position in the market, which iTunes does/did at the time of the possible collusion.

Re:Maybe

[Kilrah_il]

Yep, I was also sure that anti-trust referred to anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly, but a quick Wikipedia search showed it to be incorrect. The rules (Sherman act and Clayton act) are used to prevent acts that reduce competition, such as price discrimination and more.
For me it is a bit weird, because AFAIK it is part of usual business practice for to company A to make a deal to get a better price from company B, in order to compete with C, but I guess there is a distinction I missed.

Re:Maybe

[ceoyoyo]

It might be hard to convince the Europeans that breaking up an exclusive agreement between the record companies and Amazon makes Apple guilty of collusion.

Re:Maybe

[Kalriath]

You're in a country where the consumer protection law doesn't get summed down to "fuck what the warranty says, you're covered for whatever you'd reasonably expect for a product this expensive for this purpose"? How quaint.

Re:Maybe

[Tarmas]

Microsoft managed to squash Netscape, BeOS

While I agree with you to some extent, the arguments you provided are flawed.

BeOS was really never anything more than a tech demo. At that time Apple was interested in buying it and using BeOS as the base for their next OS when the Copland project failed miserably. They bought Next instead, and used NextStep. Be Inc. just couldn't compete. Too bad, because it was the most advanced operating system at that time.

Netscape was squashed by Internet Explorer, but it was not because of Microsoft's evil voodoo practices. It happened because IE was a far better product on both Windows and Mac, and to some extent even UNIX (yes, there was a UNIX port of IE 4 and 5).

Re:Maybe

[maitai]

Sure, and after you mess up the heck out of the outside using a soldering iron and butter knife (to pry the case free) to melt the glue used to hold the external case in place, it will look just like new!

Re:Maybe

[MacWiz]

This isn't about hardware or software. It's about Apple's music store, which has sold more singles in the last 7 years than the music industry ever did in the entire course of its prior existence. Apple's refusal to let the music cartel set retail prices made it an adversary to the RIAA.

So Amazon is getting exclusive pre-releases. Only for one day, mind you, but Apple's response is, "Then don't look to us to promote these titles." If Apple was getting the exclusive, that might be unfair market dominance. If they got exclusives AND Amazon got exclusives, it would be a fair deal.

Apple sees Amazon as a competitor. I would think that complaining seems like a perfectly normal business response to a supplier giving preference to a competitor.

The RIAA is using their combined market dominance to favor Amazon in a pointed attempt to diminish Apple's market share. It's not like one label started doing it and the others simply followed suit because it seemed like a good idea. The RIAA members have colluded and conspired together to come up with the plan and all four are going with it. The RIAA has been playing as a team for so long they don't know what actual competition even looks like any more because they gave it up a long time ago. They think that their largest retailer is their competition.

Less than two years ago, the DOJ was asking why the only music services allowed to survive were joint ventures between the four major labels. Now, the DOJ is top-heavy with ex-RIAA attorneys. They don't even need to lobby anymore.

These guys won't notice the obvious collusion and attempts at price-fixing. They stopped wondering about the joint ventures.

Looking at Apple for antitrust in this situation completely ignores the party who actually IS using their market dominance in what seems to be a highly illegal manner by giving preference to one retailer with the specific intent of damaging another retailer. Apple is getting heat merely for bitching about being on the receiving end of it.

Apparently, "Doesn't kiss the RIAA's ass" is the new definition of anti-trust.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

...it's about putting a competitor out of business as opposed to keeping people on their platform

Neither of these are particularly attractive characteristics. When the time comes, I'll be voting with my wallet. I currently have a (second-hand, free, but now ageing) MacBook which I will keep using until it breaks, but I won't be replacing it with another Apple product. I've been perfectly happy with Linux on my desktop machines for the last 15 years, so I'll just extend that to my next laptop.

Re:Maybe

[drinkypoo]

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.

So what you're saying is that Apple got money when they desperately needed it, and Microsoft avoided getting nailed for proven anticompetitive behavior? The simple truth is that Apple would very likely have died right then if not for the cash infusion and the continuation of Office. I don't think anybody said anything about altruism.

Re:Maybe

[Raistlin99]

BeOS was more or less dead by the time it even came near Microsoft. I dual booted it along with Win98, and it was a great OS, but Apple both before and after Jobs' return put a bullet it in its brain. They ported to x86 where it eventually died.

So blaming only Microsoft is a little slanted.

Re:Maybe

[Space cowboy]

No. What I'm saying is that Apple had sufficient cash in the bank that they could take a token sum of money, while forcing MS to licence a huge number of patents, simultaneously extracting a promise to deliver office for the next 5 years. If they were desperate for cash, they'd have just taken the money... patents don't help a business out of cash...

Simon

Re:Maybe

[Lars T.]

There are literally hundreds of third party solutions to the 'sealed' battery in your iWhatever.

All of them void the warranty.

And why do you want to replace a battery yourself that is still covered by warranty?

Re:Maybe

[pandrijeczko]

Microsoft ***did*** bail out Apple.

There, corrected that for you.

Re:Maybe

[Uberbah]

A good prosecutor could have a field day with Apple's marketing tactics in music, books, hardware and software sales. Probably the app store, too. No doubt they are smart enough to settle, but who knows what DoJ might demand. If they decide to go to court, anything can happen.

Slight problem with that: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything, so there wont be any prosecutors having a field day with them, no matter how good they are.

Re:Maybe

[Uberbah]

Uhhh...You DO know that Apple owns over 90% of the HDD based PMPs and more than 70% of ALL PMPs, yes?

You DO know that a large marketshare does not a monopoly make, right? Nothing stops you from having a similar experience with the same music for lower prices. Or haven't you ever seen the anti-Apple fanboys bitch about how many cheaper mp3 players are available?

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

Welp, seeing as how Apple hasn't been found guilty of anything, it's pretty clear that the proprietary bit is the only thing that's really upsetting you.

What the fuck? Why should I care what courts decide? I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself not to buy their products if I don't like the way they behave like obnoxious shits. That's what a free market is for.

The rest of your post follows on the basis of an entirely false premise. I don't really care if something is proprietary, so long as I get to use it how I choose. In other cases, I won't buy again from certain manufacturers (LG, I'm looking at you) because their products are crap.

I'd love to see that list, mainly because I'm curious what 'Open Printer' you'll be using.

I couldn't give a fuck whether or not a printer is "open" in every nuance of the word (I'm not RMS), so long as it works with my print scheduler, and I can't remember ever having had to worry about that. (And yes, I am aware that CUPS is now owned by Apple, though the code is still GPL.)

Re:Maybe

[Strudelkugel]

The law is highly subjective. Microsoft didn't have a monopoly until a judge decided they did. The exact same thing can easily happen to Apple. IBM has been the target of anti-trust action, as has Intel. No doubt Google will be getting sued someday. It really doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the judges think. From what I have seen, that can be anything. If Apple has to face someone like David Boies, they will be in very serious trouble.

Re:Maybe

[hairyfeet]

You DO know the SAME argument applies to MSFT and Intel, yes? After all there was BeOS, Linux, BSD, and OS9 at the time MSFT got busted. You also have AMD, Via, and ARM CPUs, but that certainly isn't stopping the EU from investigating Intel and considering they gave AMD 1.25 billion (with a b) you just know there are some skeletons in THAT closet.

I would suggest you read up on antitrust law and I would note the FIRST sentence of the page "Antitrust laws are federal and state statutes to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints, price discrimination, price fixing, and monopolies.

Now if Apple can set the terms a competitor, in this case Amazon, gets access to music I'd like to hear you explain how exactly that doesn't fall under antitrust? It certainly seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, if apple can simply make a phone call and get product taken away from Amazon, just as MSFT making a phone call and having Netscape removed from OEM images was blatant antitrust. I don't care how awesome you think Steve's iStuff is, no company should be allowed to use their power to block a market from competition.

Re:Maybe

[Inktknal]

I completely agree with your statement. A single company with too much power gives trouble. I use al lot of Apple hardware (Iphone and Ipad) and like their products a lot. But that doesn't give them the right to obtain a monopoly. The law prohibits such behavior for a reason.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

Just plucked out the word "open" and went into argue mode?

No, you just didn't say what you were talking about. But I don't consider it worth trying to get non-proprietary parts for my car either, so that argument is meaningless. But I can apply whatever standards I want to Apple: If I don't like them, I don't have to buy from them. Simple as that.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

Even better than that, I don't care whether you use Apple products or not. I really don't care at all. What I do care about is you acting like an idiot. I'm doing you a lot more good calling you on that...

Seems to me like you're doing yourself more good with your hand on your dick.

My position on Apple has nothing whatever to do with the "slashdot sensationalism" you mention, and more to do with Apple's direct action against people I know personally. Your automatic assumption that I am participating in groupthink puts you squarely in the role of fanboy.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

Bet you'd be happy if you could go back and edit any of your original posts to reflect this change of tactic.

No, my position is consistent. The only thing I would change is to not give into the temptation to feed an obvious troll posting under cowardly anonymity.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

You did a little clicking and discovered I was right. Right? Very classy, man.

I didn't write the post to which you responded, but I would be only too happy to discover you had made an actual point.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

Suddenly we're not where we were before.

Speak for yourself. In the first place, I made a very simple statement into which you read an unwarranted series of assumptions which were in no way implicit in what I said. If you ever had a valid or cogent point, it has been well and truly obscured by your adversarial tone.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

Fair enough, I did allow myself to become distracted, but you have to admit I had a long way to come from the left field of your response to my original post. (Incidentally, my karma has been maxed out for so long, whoring has no meaning. It would actually be more interesting if it took a major hit.)

Cheers.

Re:Maybe

[BrokenHalo]

And you have yourself a fun day. Incidentally (although I've never kept track), this dialogue, while doubtless of absolutely no interest to anyone else, must rank as by far the longest I've ever seen (let alone participated in) on Slashdot...

Have a good one. :-)

Re:Maybe

[Uberbah]

The law is highly subjective.

Not really. To convict a company on anti-trust laws, it's not enough to have large marketshare - you have to be dominating a market to the detriment of consumers (not merely your competitors). Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MP3 players - nothing stops you from buying another company's product and enjoying the same music at comparable or lesser prices. And Apple doesn't have anything close to a majority marketshare of the smartphone market, much less the cellular market in general.

The only thing Apple has a "monopoly" on is selling it's own products - but that's the same for any other company with trademarked products. Only Sony can sell Playstation consoles. Only Ford can sell Mustangs. And so on....

Re:Maybe

[Uberbah]

You DO know the SAME argument applies to MSFT and Intel, yes?

You DO know that's nonsense, yes? Just ask Netscape and AMD.

I would suggest you read up on antitrust law and I would note the FIRST sentence of the page "Antitrust laws are federal and state statutes to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints, price discrimination, price fixing, and monopolies.

I suggest YOU find where Apple is remotely close to violating any part of anti-trust law, because so far you haven't come remotely close.

Now if Apple can set the terms a competitor, in this case Amazon, gets access to music I'd like to hear you explain how exactly that doesn't fall under antitrust?

Because this Concern is over Amazon trying to offer exclusive tracks. Fighting product exclusivity translates to having a monopoly on said product on what planet?

Re:Maybe

[Strudelkugel]

dominating a market to the detriment of consumers

Which is a very subjective assessment, IMHO. Apple made a deal with the book publishers to raise prices of best sellers above Amazon's $10 price. That was detrimental to consumers, certainly. Apple has banned Flash from its devices, which could also be perceived as denying consumer choice. Apple has updated its license terms for developers so that third party tools are not to be used to call their APIs.

Apple does many things to stifle competition, and in my view, more than Microsoft ever did. No question all of the above is worthy of some debate, and judges may get to have that debate in the future. How they decide is anyone's guess. I was party to copyright hearings at one time, and was astounded at the decision the judges reached after the hearings. (Their determination was overturned by Congress...)

I think Apple is playing a very risky legal game, but I guess that's how they think they will fend of the Android devices. I'm skeptical about the strategy. I don't think it will overcome the deficiencies of ObjC and XCode, which is what they really need worry about.

Bully?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is stopping companies from breaking the law bullying?

Re:Bully?

[Monkeedude1212]

Since the country was run by corporations.

Re:Bully?

[bsDaemon]

It's not, its more like when the kid who finally stands up to the bully and punches him in the face gets called to the principal's office for fighting in school.

Re:Bully?

[Vahokif]

Since they went after Apple.

Re:Bully?

[steelfood]

Engaging in anti-competitive practices is completely justified by the improvements in shininess of the next toy such a practice would bring if Apple's doing it.

Re:Bully?

[Bigjeff5]

Reading comprehension man:

So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.

DoJ is the "bully" that the GP is referring to.

To the GP:

It's bully pulpit, i.e. that thing speakers stand in front of when they speak. A bully pulpit means you get to speak (usually you're preaching at someone), for no other reason than you said so, and apparently you're bigger (or are more important) than anybody else.

Generally, when you have a bully pulpit, you verbally beat the shit out of someone (rake them against the coals, put their feet to the fire, whatever metaphor you want to use), and they have to take it. That's what the OP is saying. Having a bully pulpit doesn't make you a bully, it just means you're going to tell someone what-for, and they have to listen.

Re:Bully?

[Lars T.]

Um, how is Amazon breaking the law? They are running a competing DRM free music store that doesn't have artificially inflated prices like iTunes.

Sow how is Apple breaking the law? They are running a competing DRM free music store that has the same artificially inflated prices like Amazon.

I don't understand this FTA

[pgmrdlm]

The Justice Department has also reportedly been investigating the hiring practices at Apple and other top technology companies, including Intel, I.B.M. and Google, asking whether the companies have improperly agreed to avoid hiring each other’s employees.

I would like to see specifically what this investigation is about. I don't see why companies can't make this type of agreement. It sounds like an agreement to respect each others trade secretes by not hiring each others employees.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Monkeedude1212]

Or a friendly agreement not to snipe each other's talent, but on the other hand, it makes someone at Apple kind of trapped at Apple, since they might not be able to get a job at the other big corporations who would use them.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Darkness404]

Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.

If I'm unhappy at Apple for some reason I have to stick with them because the other companies won't hire me, not because I'm not qualified but because of my previous employer.

If this was Burger King don't hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[melted]

I'm sorry, this is retarded. Agreements like this amount to indentured servitude for the employees. In my experience, moving from one company to another was the surest way to boost my pay. Had I stayed with the same company for a decade, my merit rises would merely beat inflation. I would also be worth a lot less to a prospective employer due to not having a varied background.

I would like not only these pacts to be outlawed, but non-competes as well. For trade secrets, there's the court of law where trade secret disputes can be adjudicated.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I don't see why companies can't make this type of agreement

For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad. Therefore the regulation of an oligopoly is considered okay. In a oligopsony, similar affects arise from collusion: the buyers of services gain huge price setting power, because they no longer have to out-bid one another.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Darkness404]

If this was Burger King not hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?

I guess lack of coffee today has made me oblivious to blindingly obvious typos in my posts.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[pgmrdlm]

If it was the scientists at Micky d's and burger king, the ones that come up with the recipes. I think the same type of agreement would be completely acceptable. Protection of trade secretes, protection of each companies expensive talent. Your argument doesn't stand the test of review. I'm not even sure I believe the argument of not being able to move from company to company is a valid argument. If I have any of those companies on my resume, I can go anywhere looking for a job. And, I might ad. It would be to my advantage to do so, go elsewhere. More freedom of my talents.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[dfghjk]

Because it damages the ability of individuals to find work.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[pgmrdlm]

How are you locked in? You saying that having these companies on your resume restricts you in your job search? You saying that taking that type of experience to a startup company or other multi national company would not do you any good in your salary negotiations? sorry, don't see it. Your not restricted in any way of finding a job of the same pay or better. You are underestimating who would be interested in your talents and what you can make.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Darkness404]

But lets face it, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. are all very stable employers. Chances are they will exist in some form in 5 years. Why should I not have the right to move to a stable employer? Yeah, I can go to "anywhere" looking for a job but Google, Apple and IBM all pay very high wages and benefits. Why should I be locked out of the other 2 because I worked for one?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Dragoniz3r]

Yeah, that's actually exactly what he's saying. Look into non-compete agreements. Then look at the paperwork you signed when you took your job to see if you have one or not. Finally, check and see if the terms end immediately upon leaving your current employer, or 1/2/5/10 years later.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[dangitman]

Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.

Well, you could always go work for Microsoft...

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[fustakrakich]

Is it a nice hot McDonalds coffee you might be looking for?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[russotto]

Protection of trade secretes, protection of each companies expensive talent.

Hold on there, pardner. The trade secrets belong to the company, but the talent belongs to the employees.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[melted]

There are only a few worthwhile companies which build operating systems, for instance. Tablets, mobile phone OS's, search engines, ads -- these are just a few highly competitive areas with few big players. If those players strike a pact, you'll have to change your career. This is shitty and unfair.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Bigjeff5]

I think the same type of agreement would be completely acceptable.

You know the best way to keep your employees?

Pay them what they are worth, and treat them like human beings.

Apple has a bad habit of doing neither for some employees (most companies do actually), which is why they create these agreements. It saves the corporations money, while completely screwing their employees.

Why is that OK? Ever? You can have an NDA, and if the employee breaks it after they go to another company (you can work somewhere else and still keep an NDA), you can sue them into bankruptcy. That's all that is needed. The no-hire policies are anti-competitive and should be made illegal.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[MidnightBrewer]

According to the FTA, you won't get hired at Google, IBM, et al., if you currently work at Apple. The reverse is true. This may be illegal, but the companies' motivation is obviously something akin to a gentlemen's agreement not to poach from each other. It's ugly, but it's also still not the same as saying that working at Apple prevents you from quitting and then applying for a job somewhere else.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[tepples]

It's also fairly expensive to move your family to California just to escape a non-compete.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[tepples]

For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad.

The major console makers seem to have coordinated the price of devkits for the past two and a half decades, at least until Microsoft came out with the entry-level XNA devkit for 360.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Lars T.]

In California, non-compete clauses are invalid. If I work at Apple and then leave, they have no legal reason to prevent me from accepting any job. Companies making agreements that are outside of the law are colluding, which is an antitrust violation.

Interesting spin, they only mention "agreed to avoid hiring each other’s employees" not former employees.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[melted]

Merely moving your family to CA doesn't release you from your obligations under the non-compete, if your previous company was in the state where non-competes are legal. See e.g. Kai Fu Lee's defection from MSFT to Google.

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[theshowmecanuck]

What you are condoning is very close to slavery. You can't work for anyone else in your field because the company is blocking you. Then the company can start to abuse you because basically they own you. You seem to think that corporations are more important than the people who work for them. Software jobs are more niche marketed than you seem to think. Why do you think people who make news from switching from one company to another invariably move to a similar job to their last at the new company?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

How expensive do you think a devkit is?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[tepples]

How expensive do you think a devkit is?

I've been quoted $10,000. Nintendo made the Wii devkit cheaper than that, about $2,000, but one first has to spend $10,000 on an office lease to qualify because Nintendo does not deal with home-based businesses. Do the other console makers post their qualifications to apply to become an authorized developer?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I've been quoted $10,000. Nintendo made the Wii devkit cheaper than that, about $2,000

I heard Sony pricematched the Wii, although now that they are not hurting for content, the price may have gone up.

Do the other console makers post their qualifications to apply to become an authorized developer?

Not to my knowledge. Or if they do they are as general as the Wii's you linked to. They require you not be a home-based business (I believe all consoles will require this, to keep dev info secure), but note how vague what they will approve is. Basically, all console makers need to be sold on you producing something, having both the skills (technical, art and design) and budget.

It's hard to prove, and it's a slow slow process. Are you currently in the industry?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[tepples]

Basically, all console makers need to be sold on you producing something, having both the skills (technical, art and design) and budget.

So once my team has produced a playable one-level demo for the PC, and the game is in a genre that traditionally isn't sold for PCs, how do I get it ported to a console?

Are you currently in the industry?

No. I want to get into the industry, but there isn't even an IGDA chapter in the state of Indiana, and I occasionally need to care for senior family members.

Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

As i've been ranting about for a while now... It's time to either let Microsoft run its business in the same manner Apple does... or force Apple to deal with the same nonsense all of you impose on Microsoft.

When will we end the hypocrisy? Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.

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...

[Pharmboy]

When will we end the hypocrisy? Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.

This is the same logic that got us involved in Iraq, when the big problem was in Afghanistan. If Microsoft were left to its own devices, every computer maker would still be paying for a copy of a Windows license, even on computers that didn't have a copy of Windows on it. Like they already did before DOJ got on them. And yes, they would also be spending those billions in cash to sue Linux software makers for "patent infringing", just to put them out of business, and lock the server side up even tighter than the desktop side.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Microlith]

They disguised their monopoly, and profited off it longer.

Which monopoly did they have? What market did they have such a hold on that they could kill a customer on a whim?

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.

A vulgar one, aren't you. Go back to /g/.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Adambomb]

Why can't I just despise both?

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[intheshelter]

"Why do you think Apple's always pushed its elitist standard? To make it seem more niche, to avoid exactly what happened to Microsoft."
- that doesn't even survive a basic test of logic. How exactly does being elitist avoid what happened to MS?

"There is absolutely no legitimate reason to lock an iPod or iPhone or iAnything to only use iTunes, except to promote hegemony."
- There a lots of legitimate reasons, like quality control, control of an eco-system that "just works". It is exactly this control that is giving it such huge success now, because they exercise control over the experience and thus make it consistent.

Learn what you're talking about before dribbling this crap out of your mouth.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Dragoniz3r]

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.

Is this some sort of joke? Apple is ALREADY in that position. You just seem to be blinded to anything not having to do with PC OSes.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[dangitman]

But the only thing Apple has a monopoly over is Apple products. Microsoft had a monopoly that controlled an entire industry - other people's companies, not just Microsoft stuff. It would be different if Microsoft only made Windows for Microsoft computers.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[ImprovOmega]

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to lock an iPod or iPhone or iAnything to only use iTunes, except to promote hegemony.

iPods and such also play MP3's, without any DRM at all. Anyone is free to sell in this format (if the record companies agree, or if the indie band allows selling in that format). Now the iTunes software generally only works with Apple products, but you can pretty well blame that one on the RIAA and similar entities for shoving a DRM scheme down our throats.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[whisper_jeff]

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

Seriously, evil? We neuter words when we use them casually in a way they are not intended. We rail against politicians and marketers for bandying about certain words in the wrong situation while people here on Slashdot call Apple evil! You may not like them; you may not like their products; you may not like their policies; you may not like their procedures but, let's be serious, the company is not evil.

Gawd. "I don't like them" is not the same thing as "evil!"

I know. I know. I must be new here...

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[tlhIngan]

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.

Actually, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. Natural monopolies aside, if someone is able to garner enough goodwill and purchasing power to be a monopoly in one area, it's not illegal. The only illegality comes when a monopoly is abused.

Microsoft took their Windows monopoly to put IE on the desktop. There was no need for any third-party browser now, and that desktop monopoly became an web browser monopoly as well, something we all are fighting to this day. IE6 will not die, and IE in general still holds a commanding share of web browser "marketshare".

Apple had a monopoly on selling music on iPods, but Amazon came up and took away that monopoly (because iPods play MP3s). In fact, the closest Apple had was when they were leveraging iPod sales and iTunes - this was why the EU was doing investigations into Apple. Now that Apple has gone DRM free, those concerns disappeared (because Apple sold music that only worked on iPods, thus limiting third party MP3 players from being able to play purchased music).

This case is that Apple is using it's "monopoly" on music sales to limit Amazon's ability to sell music. Namely, by demanding that the music labels cannot give preferential pricing to a third party without offering it on Apple's store as well. If a music label wants to make a track of the week 70 cents on Amazon, it also becomes 70 cents on iTunes.

Which seems bad, but remember that Apple and Amazon are also doing the exact same thing with each other on the ebook market. Apple gave publishers an option they liked better than Amazon's option, so publishers went with Apple, and Amazon relented. Apple's agreement with publishers is they don't give anyone but Apple preferential pricing. Amazon caved and went with the same agency model, and also demands that publishers cannot give preferential pricing to anyone else other than Amazon.

And Amazon's not exactly the innocent party as well - having "dealt with" publishers that refuse to go along with its pricing model by trying to "devalue" books from that publisher, or even worse, not offering to sell the book on its marketplace.

Apple's only real leverage is marketshare, and all it takes is someone to make a better iPod and all that advantage disappears. So Apple may have a monopoly on music sales, but it's far from a certain one and the iPod has to compete with everything else out there. Even music sold on Apple's store isn't locked to an iPod anymore, and modern MP3 players will play it just fine as well (say, Microsoft's Zune).

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Bigjeff5]

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

Actually, Microsoft has to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though they have a potential monopoly. That's the whole point of anti-trust laws. The monopoly allows them to do things that they could not do with strong competition (as you pointed out). The law forces them to act as though they are simply the biggest competitor in the market, not a monopoly.

Apple, oddly enough, must abide by the same rules. So does everyone who does business in the United States, in fact. Apple has been treading in dangerous water with the way the treat iPods and iTunes (I believe they sued or threatened to sue someone recently for reverse engineering their iPod format to allow their software interoperate with the iPod, which is perfectly legal), and if they don't make some quick changes they're about to be slapped down hard, just like Microsoft was.

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

The difference is, Microsoft has already been punished, and have not be behaving the same way they did before. Leave them alone unless (until more likely) they do it again, or break the specific rules of their punishment.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

No, what you just wrote was the same bullshit nonsense that got us involved in iraq. You did not state any fact. You fear mongered. Congrats... you are your very own argument.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

See now that is an honest answer. I admire that. I agree.. lets hate them both so that we get what we want out of them... but one day we have to admit "this stuff is pretty good". If it warrants it of course.

Apple right now is far more controlling than MS has EVER BEEN.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Pharmboy]

Really? They used to charge manufacturers for every computer they sold whether or not it had windows, this is a fact. They have already said that Linux infringes on their patents, this is a fact. Assuming they would continue to charge manufacturers or pursue lawsuits on their "intellectual property" if they weren't restrained in some way isn't FUD, it is logical deduction.

Most people on /. are technical persons, and I wouldn't have to give them these direct links. Most people, including people like myself who actually use some Microsoft products, already have come to the same conclusion, that Microsoft has abused it's monopoly in the past and would likely do so even more if not for being partially restrained. No fear mongering needed, history speaks for itself.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[IANAAC]

We neuter words when we use them casually in a way they are not intended.

Yes we do.

But then, many people tout the ipad as "truly magical and revolutionary" too. Oh, and "What the device does is extraordinary. It is the best browsing experience you've ever had. ... It's unbelievably great ... way better than a laptop."

Words are used casually in ways they really aren't intended all the time. The trick is in seeing past them.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[jjbenz]

but Microsoft is so much more fun to hate.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. Natural monopolies aside, if someone is able to garner enough goodwill and purchasing power to be a monopoly in one area, it's not illegal. The only illegality comes when a monopoly is abused.

To be more specific, it's anti-competitive behavior that is illegal. You do not need to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive, though it definitely helps. Nor having a monopoly on something is anti-competitive in and of itself.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[DWIM]

You may not like them; you may not like their products; you may not like their policies; you may not like their procedures but, let's be serious, the company is not evil.

You are correct. However, I won't waste my time trying to find your similar defense of Microsoft when they have been repeatedly called evil here at ./.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Rockoon]

First you say:

Microsoft took their Windows monopoly to put IE on the desktop. There was no need for any third-party browser now, and that desktop monopoly became an web browser monopoly as well, something we all are fighting to this day. IE6 will not die, and IE in general still holds a commanding share of web browser "marketshare".

And then you say:

Apple had a monopoly on selling music on iPods, but Amazon came up and took away that monopoly (because iPods play MP3s). In fact, the closest Apple had was when they were leveraging iPod sales and iTunes - this was why the EU was doing investigations into Apple. Now that Apple has gone DRM free, those concerns disappeared (because Apple sold music that only worked on iPods, thus limiting third party MP3 players from being able to play purchased music).

You spinning little fucker. Apple still has a monopoly on online music sales. In fact, ITMS is the largest music retailer in the world (both online and offline, and thats combined jackass) Amazon tripled its music marketshare this year.... to 11% so yeah, go on about Amazon will ya?

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Rockoon]

Apple is ALREADY in that position.

...and is already leveraging it.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"This case is that Apple is using it's "monopoly" on music sales to limit Amazon's ability to sell music. Namely, by demanding that the music labels cannot give preferential pricing to a third party without offering it on Apple's store as well. If a music label wants to make a track of the week 70 cents on Amazon, it also becomes 70 cents on iTunes."

Exactly, what if someone went after walmart for selling cheaper items? Its called competition asshats...

The difference here is what you're buying at Walmart. You see, the RIAA is a trust, convicted multiple times of leveraging their cartel on music publishing in order to harm competition and fix prices. It's an interesting example, because the RIAA and Walmart have actually fought over this very issue. The RIAA has been fighting to maintain control and made statements about how they didn't want Apple to be another Walmart able to force them to offer price discounts and block them from leveraging their cartel.

For the sake of simplicity, let's use an analogy. In most places, electrical power distribution is a local monopoly for a number of reasons. Since that's one of the few monopolies that is well known to consumers, it makes a good example. Now suppose a couple of "filling stations" for electric cars started operating and one of them took over 70% of the market. They're a large, bulk customer and they also install a wind farm on the premises to lower costs. The power company demanded they remove it and were rebuffed. So suppose your local power distributor decided to start charging higher prices to that charging station and lower prices to their rival. And what if they made a deal that on days where power was constrained by brownouts, they'd provide power to one of the charging stations but not the other, simply to force more customers to the smaller company to prevent either from having enough power to stand up to them. Now the smaller charging station isn't doing anything illegal, but the power distribution monopoly is. They're violating antitrust law and the deal they made with that charging station is illegal. In this example the RIAA is the power distributor, and Apple and Amazon are the filling stations.

IF amazon sells cheaper music then I will buy from them. Apple cannot dictate that it's unfair something is cheaper somewhere else.

Because the RIAA has monopoly influence on the music publishing market, it is illegal for them to charge different prices to different people for the same products. Apple can certainly tell the RIAA that, and if this goes to court, you have two companies potentially with monopoly influence and hopefully the courts will do the right thing. Breaking up the RIAA would, of course, be ideal, but since their former employees are running the justice department, that seems unlikely.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Uberbah]

Apple had a monopoly on selling music on iPods,

Every trademarked product is a "monopoly". Only Ford can make Mustangs. Only Sony can make Playstation game consoles.

Apple never had a monopoly on mp3 players, nor a monopoly on buying music online. There's nothing stopping anyone from having a similar experience with the same music for equal or lesser prices.

Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[acomj]

The Music industry is probably still mad that Apple fought their 0.30 $ increase in prices and has the leverage to do so.

This doesn't seem like a big deal. The barrier to entry in creating an online music store seems pretty low, plus the files are now DRM free and playable on any player. Apple just seems to not want Amazon to get music before it does.

Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place. I think that head start put itunes music store in the position it is in today.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[dangitman]

Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place.

This is one of the most fascinating things in recent tech/media history to me. I believe the labels' thinking at the time was that this was a test, and experimental roll-out. Because this new-fangled iPod and iTunes was a Mac-only thing at the time, and Macs had a tiny share of the computer market. So, they'd see if it worked. If it failed, no big deal, it's only a few Mac users. But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful and Apple made the unprecedented move of releasing iTunes for Windows and adding USB support (early models were Firewire-only).

Basically, what the labels thought was a minor experiment turned into the future of their industry.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[Draek]

Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.

Only marginally less shocking than the news of guys behind Bing getting the MSN portal to use their search service.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[dangitman]

Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.

How would Jobs being a Disney board member persuade music publishers? That doesn't make any sense, especially as Jobs was not a Disney board member at the time.

Also, you forget that the music labels were (and still are) deathly afraid of online digital distribution. To them moving beyond physical discs was seen as a huge risk. To even be attempted, it had to be guaranteed to be extremely locked-down and restricted.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[pandrijeczko]

The Music industry is probably still mad that Apple fought their 0.30 $ increase in prices and has the leverage to do so.

Even at the cheaper price per track, it is still perfectly possible to buy the *LOSSLESS* CD cheaper than the download tracks if you do a little research and shopping around.

And get one thing clear in your head - if Steve Jobs and his board made this decision for purely altruistic reasons, Apple shareholders would have their butts kicked out the door without a moment's notice. No, it was done to *SELL MORE MUSIC* to make Apple more *PROFITS* so the shareholders got bigger *PREMIUMS*.

Jobs is a businessman, not your friendly old uncle - get used to it.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[R3d M3rcury]

Steve Jobs was not a Disney boardmember until 2006. Apple started the iTunes Music Store in 2003.

Nice try.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful...

yes everybody's surprise. To this day I don't understand how the ipod/itunes bonanza occurred, given the prevalence of mp3s and availability of generic portable mp3 players. Every USB stick can double as a portable music library FFS!

Just goes to show that a "chic" product and clever marketing campaigns will always win out over practicality and common sense.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[dangitman]

yes everybody's surprise. To this day I don't understand how the ipod/itunes bonanza occurred, given the prevalence of mp3s and availability of generic portable mp3 players

You really need to think about it more. The iPod was introduced in 2001. Generic portable MP3 players were not widely available. Most people didn't even know what an MP3 player was. None of them were cheap.

Every USB stick can double as a portable music library FFS!

Firstly, in 2001, USB2 wasn't even on the market yet, and USB flash drives were expensive and had very low storage capacity. Secondly - "every USB stick can double as a portable music player"?? Where do you plug your headphones into the typical USB flash drive?

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[phantomfive]

I met someone who worked in the recording industry at the time, and he told me that the industry was dying. Recording studios were going empty, firing employees and relying on interns, and there was a mood of despair over everyone. When Apple came out with iTunes, it was like a breath of hope. This guy's actual words were, "iTunes saved the music industry." It seems the music execs were thinking, "we don't know what to do, but we have to try something." And Apple did a good job convincing them their plan would work.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[UnknowingFool]

the iPod was insanely successful and Apple made the unprecedented move of releasing iTunes for Windows and adding USB support (early models were Firewire-only).

Apple didn't use USB when the iPod was first released because USB 1 was inferior to Firewire for large transfers. USB2 was first released in April 2000 as a specification but it would be a few years before widespread adoption.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[dangitman]

Apple didn't use USB when the iPod was first released because USB 1 was inferior to Firewire for large transfers.

Yes, I know. I'm not sure what your point is. That's why Firewire was used, because it was fast. But even several years later, most Windows PCs didn't come equipped with Firewire, while all Macs did.

My point about being "unprecedented" was Apple catering to the Windows platform, something that the company had not done before.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[dangitman]

When Apple came out with iTunes, it was like a breath of hope. This guy's actual words were, "iTunes saved the music industry."

Actually, iTunes was released with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign, and much hostility from the music industry, including threats of legal action. It wasn't until the later iPod that the industry started to get interested.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[phantomfive]

I'm talking about the iTunes music store, not the iTunes program, which is what is commonly intended in this context.

Re:Bah- Music industry sour grapes

[PapayaSF]

I believe the labels' thinking at the time was that this was a test, and experimental roll-out.

Perhaps in part, but I think it's more that they were forced to go with Jobs' plan to sell (not rent) music at a flat price because they all knew that previous attempts to sell music online had failed: the Sony Connect store, Duet, MusicNet, Pressplay, etc. All were so restrictive and user-unfriendly that buying songs on iTunes at a flat $.99 was a breath of fresh air, even with the DRM they had at that time.

Cartel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Heh, investigating Apple for leveraging dominance against the RIAA, A cartel convicted of antitrust abuses several times? How about dealing with them effectively first?

Re:Cartel

[jayme0227]

They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.

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.

Re:Cartel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.

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.

Which is great and all, except Amazon is already being charged differentially less than Apple in music royalties by the RIAA as a way of intentionally decreasing Apple's market share so they have less influence compared to the RIAA. Amazon is a stalking horse as much as a competitor here.

Bad headline - not antitrust

[mveloso]

What, do the copy editors come from the Weekly World News now? Even fark has better, more accurate headlines.

Re:Bad headline - not antitrust

[blair1q]

Um, you have that almost entirely wrong.

Collusion and other anticompetitive behaviors are exactly what is meant when the "antitrust" investigators get involved.

Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to how you've misread the title.

Re:Bad headline - not antitrust

[Bigjeff5]

It's a precursor to an antitrust investigation. The complaint is definitely antitrust. Unless you don't understand what "antitrust" means.

Bully Pulpit

[SlashDotDotDot]

It says bully pulpit. Which is something else entirely.

In other news...

[MacGyver2210]

Bill Gates was quoted as saying "Muhahaha! How the tables have turned!"

Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well.

As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.

Re:Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well. As it they get bigger then[sic] M$ they they may be forced to.

Apple might be forced to separate their desktop OS and desktop computer businesses, but not until they have dominance in one of those markets, we're talking 70% or so as a general guideline. It's unlikely they will ever reach such levels.

Re:Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's

[dangitman]

Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well. As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.

That's a very strange logic, because if Apple licensed the Mac OS to generic hardware manufacturers, that would put them at greater risk of becoming an actual monopoly, because it would increase other companies' dependence on Apple.

If you could easily (and more importantly, officially) run Mac OS on cheap generic hardware, Windows might actually face a significant decline in marketshare, putting Apple in the same position that got Microsoft slapped with anti-trust suits.

Seems like a strange way to fight a supposed monopolist, by making it more monopoly-like.

Re:Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's

[T Murphy]

A company going from small marketshare to moderate marketshare makes it no more monopoly-like than putting a small rock with another small rock makes them more blackhole-like. Sure, you could claim a scenario where Apple sudddenly has 90%+ of some market segment, but that doesn't seem likely. Making the two OSs compete directly should only help reduce any monopoly effect either company has.

Re:Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's

[dangitman]

A company going from small marketshare to moderate marketshare makes it no more monopoly-like than putting a small rock with another small rock makes them more blackhole-like.

You've just re-stated my point in different words. Notice how I primarily focused on the nature of the business, rather than just the size of it?

Sure, you could claim a scenario where Apple sudddenly has 90%+ of some market segment, but that doesn't seem likely.

Just as I alluded to in my post, marketshare is not the only measure of monopoly behavior.

Making the two OSs compete directly should only help reduce any monopoly effect either company has.

Not necessarily. If one eviscerates the other in the market and abuses its resulting monopoly, that doesn't reduce any monopoly effects.

Go to hell, DoJ

[Rogerborg]

Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released.

If that's all there is to the accusation, then Apple deserve kudos - in this one isolated instance - for forcing wider access to the works. Exclusive is the antithetis of the purpose of copyrights.

Re:Go to hell, DoJ

[Pop69]

Exclusive is the antithetis of the purpose of copyrights.

Actually, exclusive is EXACTLY what copyrights are about, you should look up the definition sometime.

Re:Go to hell, DoJ

[pandrijeczko]

Why does it force wider access to the works?

You can buy MP3 tracks from Amazon and put them on your App£e device, or if your old and boring like me and determined not to be ripped off by paying more for lossy music, just go buy the CD.

Re:Go to hell, DoJ

[ceoyoyo]

Well, for one thing, the Amazon MP3 store doesn't work so well outside of the US. The iTMS, no problem.

The real question is how Apple can be accused of anti-competitive behaviour for breaking up an exclusivity agreement.

Re:Go to hell, DoJ

[Rogerborg]

Actually, exclusive is EXACTLY what copyrights are about, you should look up the definition sometime.

Exclusivity is the mechanism, not the purpose. Comprehension fail.

Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[hellfire]

Just from a quick google search on itunes music market share:

According to Wikipedia, as of 2006 Stevie said iTunes had 88% of the market for downloadable music
According to Cnet, that percentage was 70% in 2009.

Okay so Apple appears to have market dominance in downloadable music. Confirm monopoly stamp.

Now, from the article:

"But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released."

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?

*brain explodes*

I'm sure I'm going to sniff some RIAA lobbiest involvement in this once I reassemble my head.

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:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[gnasher719]

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

Apple doesn't have a "controlling share" in the digital music market, they only have about 25%. Amazon has quite a large share itself, both from music downloads and CDs (you know what the D in CD stands for? It doesn't stand for digital, but the music on a CD _is_ digital). But the OP expressed himself badly: It is not Amazon who is restricting competition, it is whoever sells music to Amazon at a price that is so low they can sell music for less than Apple has to pay for it, and still make a profit. And Apple is basically saying to the music industry: When you sell music to someone else so cheap that we can't compete with their prices, then we won't do any free advertisements for that music.

Re:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[R3d M3rcury]

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?

No. Amazon wanted the ability to have some songs from the music companies one day before everyone else. The music companies agreed. Apple came along and said, "If you do, we won't sell that song at all."

Re:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[vakuona]

Get some facts straight. Apple _offer_ their browser to you when you download/update iTunes. They don't shove it down your throat.

Re:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[elrous0]

So you're saying that Mac's/iPads/iPods don't come with Safari pre-installed? Huh, I always thought they did, just like Windows.

Re:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[intheshelter]

I don't think Apple said they won't sell the song. They just didn't promote those songs. And to be honest why should they. If the RIAA is going to f*** Apple, their biggest online distributor, but giving Amazon some sweetheart deal in order to hurt Apple's market share, then why should Apple help them? I honestly don't see anything wrong with this. Would YOU continue to help your supplier if you knew the supplier was trying to kill part of your business?

Why is this news or being investigated? Oh, I get it. The RIAA is complaining to the DOJ in the hope that they can hurt Apple when the RIAA could not do it themselves.

Re:Some facts, some figures, and some hypocrisy

[Uberbah]

The same way Apple forces its shit down everyone's throat but Microsoft can't even include a web browser.

Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any part of the computer market. Microsoft does, and monopolies play under a different set of rules.

*brain explodes*

You might want to relocate your head first, or that will be doubly painful and messy.

lala.com

[toxonix]

I miss lala.com. oh wait, its still there for a few days. If I do the same thing lala did, will Apple buy me out and shut it down?

So Apple is now bigger than Microsoft

[fustakrakich]

Anybody wanna tell me again how lockdown is bad for business?

Fucking get it right....

[coolgeek]

It's an inquiry, NOT an investigation. An inquiry may or may not lead to an investigation.

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[dangitman]

Wait, I thought you didn't use Apple products. So how does it affect you?

Hypocrisy

[Fishbulb]

Soooo...

Amazon was trying to work a deal where it got to sell mp3s earlier than Apple? Isn't that anti-competitive too?

Now Apple is being investigated for being anti-competitive to a competitors anti-competitiveness.

Isn't that just competition?

Re:Hypocrisy

[shutdown -p now]

As they say on Slashdot, "but X is not a monopoly like Y! they play by different rules!". Normally, X=Apple and Y=Microsoft; in this particular case, X=Amazon and Y=Apple.

Simply put, the claim is that Apple has a monopoly, and therefore their influence on the market is anti-competitive, while Amazon isn't, so they are in the clear. Whether the logic is sound or not, it should be applied consistently.

Of course, the matter of Apple being a monopoly in the first place is a separate one. But, apparently, they have 70% of online music sales market, so there is good reason to look into it closely, which is precisely what they're doing.

Re:Hypocrisy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As they say on Slashdot, "but X is not a monopoly like Y! they play by different rules!". Normally, X=Apple and Y=Microsoft; in this particular case, X=Amazon and Y=Apple.

Actually, everyone plays by the same rules, but those rules apply to monopolized markets. In this case Apple might have sufficient dominance in the digital music download market. The RIAA does have sufficient influence in the music publishing market (multiple antitrust convictions). Amazon does not seem to have monopoly influence, but the RIAA making exclusive deals with them probably is a violation of the law and illegal. For that matter, the differential pricing afforded to Amazon and which they claim as a trade secret is almost certainly illegal as well. While Amazon may not be held liable for those deals, that doesn't mean the RIAA will not be convicted and those deals abrogated.

Of course, the matter of Apple being a monopoly in the first place is a separate one. But, apparently, they have 70% of online music sales market, so there is good reason to look into it closely, which is precisely what they're doing.

Agreed. Although really this is the result of the courts not dealing effectively with existing criminal trusts. Apple is close on market share for digital music downloads and portable digital players, both markets where the RIAA and Microsoft have been abusing their existing and legally established dominant market shares. MS has been convicted, in fact, with regard to Windows Media Player. So when Apple leverages their market share, it raises my ire less. So far their "abuses" have done more to make the market competitive than anything by countering the influence of other monopolists in ways that benefit the consumer. I've no illusions this is for any reason other than that it happens to benefit Apple financially, mind you, but for the courts to intervene here after turning a blind eye or providing a legal slap on the wrist to the others would be a travesty against the consumer.

Riiiiight!

[TRRosen]

So now its uncompetitive for Apple to complain about other companies trying to gain an unfair advantage. Amazon's program gave Amazon a monopoly since they would be the only ones selling the tracks early. I can only imagine what a sh*t storm Amazon would throw if Borders was able to sell select books a week before them or anyone else. Personally I feel all retail exclusivity agreements should be illegal. Including Cell phones and album/tracks. The only stuff that should be "available only at wal-mart" is bad taste and bad judgment.

Re:Riiiiight!

[pandrijeczko]

Read the article more carefully.

The issue is not about either Amazon or Apple trying vying to sell stuff first but Apple trying to persuade the labels *not* to sell to Amazon - a big difference.

Please try to stay on topic, thanks.

Re:Riiiiight!

[eliotw]

TRRosen is on topic. Amazon wants to be able to sell content "exclusively" before anyone else can. Apple isn't happy with that and can you blame them. It seems like Apple is saying to the record companies "if you give preference to Amazon over us, then we'll do the same and give preference to other labels over you" That sounds pretty fair to me. If it were Apple asking for the exclusivity then it would be a different story.

Re:Riiiiight!

[pandrijeczko]

If I go to a supplier and say "I want you to supply me with 100 £5 widgets for £4 each and I want you to supply me with them first", that's competition.

If I go to a supplier and say "I don't want you to supply Fred Bloggs with £5 widgets for anything less than £4.50 and make sure he gets them late", that's monopolistic.

Like I said, wipe away the spittle and go back and *READ* the article more carefully, thanks.

Re:Riiiiight!

[jjbenz]

absolutely correct!

Re:Riiiiight!

[TRRosen]

So your saying Amazon is monopolistic!

Because they're the one that wanted to get music before everyone else and at a lower cost. Apple never tried to shut out Amazon they just didn't want Amazon getting preferential treatment.

Re:Riiiiight!

[vakuona]

Except that is not what Apple is saying. And lets get some context in this. Music sales are very front loaded. A very large percentage of music gets sold in the first few days of sale. Exclusivity arrangements are unacceptable for that reason. In any case, all Apple is saying is thta it won't promote the music that is given exclusively to Amazon. They will still sell it. It probably undermines the exclusivity arrangements and that is probably the point. Why should Apple advertise content that it only available at a competitor.

MOD PARENT OFF-TOPIC

[pandrijeczko]

...as this is an anti-trust investigation against App£e and has nothing to do with Microsoft.

Please try to stay on topic, thanks.

MOD CHILD OF GRANDPARENT OFF-TOPIC

[WillAffleckUW]

As this is how conspiracy theories start, when people not familiar with anti-trust investigations in the USA fail to understand how things work in this country.

(caveat - I have owned and worked for MSFT and owned Apple - not holding either stock at the moment)

Re:MOD CHILD OF GRANDPARENT OFF-TOPIC

[pandrijeczko]

...and I know how to draw an aeroplane on a piece of paper, but that doesn't automatically imply I know how to build, repair or fly one.

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[pandrijeczko]

It affects me because despite being an honest, CD-buying music lover who laughs at the fools who pay good money for lossy downloads, I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.

And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to the contrary, there are many thousands if you look beyond the cheap plasticized music thrown at you in marketing and over-hype).

This in turn ultimately means that proper musicians who *DO* have the capability of putting together albums that are good from start to finish will be forced out of making music because it will be much cheaper for record companies to catapult some talentless moistened bint to the public's attention, despite her only skill being the ability to wiggle her backside at a video camera.

Consequently the music I love so dearly will be destroyed and that's why it affects me.

Go after them for the crap they did to book sales

[Shivetya]

because they cut us out and favored the publishers.

As for their music policy, I bet the arguments over only a 30 cent spike were not as heated as many suspect, frankly I would not doubt Apple welcomed it.

Irony, anyone?

[damnfuct]

It's interesting/ironic how Apple's marketing tactics and fanbase are oddly similar to the non-hammer-throwing crowd in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Re:apple app store lock in and it's censorship is

[dangitman]

apple app store lock in and it's censorship is there now!

Firstly, try to learn some English so you can write coherent sentences. Secondly, yes, the Apple "app store" censors and filters applications that Apple sells to users of Apple products. What's illegal about that? Wal-Mart isn't obligated to sell any particular brand of products. Any retail store can choose what they sell and what they don't. Why should the app store be any different?

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[dangitman]

I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.

You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."

And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to the contrary, there are many thousands if you look beyond the cheap plasticized music thrown at you in marketing and over-hype).

Fuck the hell off. You can easily buy full albums from iTunes. And contrary to your belief, there are plenty of artists who you wouldn't want to buy the full album, but might like to buy just a track or two. I thought consumer choice was good?

How is Apple stopping artists from releasing good, coherent albums?

This in turn ultimately means that proper musicians who *DO* have the capability of putting together albums that are good from start to finish will be forced out of making music because it will be much cheaper for record companies to catapult some talentless moistened bint to the public's attention, despite her only skill being the ability to wiggle her backside at a video camera.

Sounds more like you are describing the 1990s MTV music video scene, when people had less choice in their music distribution, and were spoon-fed music by the TV and Clear Channel radio stations. Good thing that era is over.

Consequently the music I love so dearly will be destroyed and that's why it affects me.

Apple is destroying good music? This is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard, particularly because we have never before had such a wide choice in great music and albums. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Perhaps you just haven't gotten over your nostalgia for the 60s and 70s, and haven't opened your eyes to all the good music that is around?

If anything distribution models like iTunes make it much easier for smaller/indie more creative artists to find an audience and sell their songs.

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[pandrijeczko]

You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."

So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.

Fuck the hell off.

Well that's an intelligent response.

You can easily buy full albums from iTunes.

Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip them myself to whatever format I want - and have an automatic backup in a nice plastic case I can store on a shelf.

How is Apple stopping artists from releasing good, coherent albums?

It's contributing to the demise of proper music by allowing music to be treated like "pick & mix sweeties". Yes, I'm a complete and utter music snob, it's my prime hobby and if you don't have the patience to sit down, relax and enjoy a really good piece of music then stay away from it and go find something else to do with your time.

And contrary to your belief, there are plenty of artists who you wouldn't want to buy the full album, but might like to buy just a track or two. I thought consumer choice was good?

And one of my favourite bands and probably the biggest rock band in the world currently, AC/DC, does not allow their music to be sold on iTunes.

Plus I don't consider £10 to be an unreasonable price to pay for a music CD I may have been enjoying know for 3 or more decades. It follows from that logic that I don't mind paying £5 for a CD on which only half the tracks are good. But most of my CD albums are great because I do my research well and only buy music from artists who are generally creative enough to be able to put together a good album.

Sounds more like you are describing the 1990s MTV music video scene, when people had less choice in their music distribution, and were spoon-fed music by the TV and Clear Channel radio stations. Good thing that era is over.

Agree totally with you. I've probably seen a total of about 5 minutes of MTV in my entire lifespan - as far as I'm concerned, the only justification for music video is the filming of live concerts for later viewing. Otherwise, it's a mechanism to distract the viewer from the music itself being utterly manufactured plasticized tripe.

However, that era is not over because there are now more channels pumping out trashy music videos.

Apple is destroying good music?

Contributing to the destruction, yes.

This is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard, particularly because we have never before had such a wide choice in great music and albums. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Agreed, there's a huge wealth of great music CDs out there, a lot of stuff being remastered and a lot of old forgotten classics being re-released. I could not be happier with the job the record companies are doing bringing some great music to me at really good prices.

Perhaps you just haven't gotten over your nostalgia for the 60s and 70s, and haven't opened your eyes to all the good music that is around?

I find it astounding that you're able to make that incorrect assumption of my listening habits based on what I've said so far. For your information, I listen mainly to rock & blues music from the 50s to the present day - I also enjoy electronic music and some classical stuff as well, my tastes are quite wide.

If anything distribution models like iTunes make it much easier for smaller/indie more creative artists to find an audience and sell their songs.

I own an iPod Touch my wife gave to me when she upgraded to an iPhone but I've only ever put on it the stuff I rip from my own CDs. I have glanced in the iTune

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[dangitman]

So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.

No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.

Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM. It had nothing to do with public outcry.

Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip them myself to whatever format I want - and have an automatic backup in a nice plastic case I can store on a shelf.

Good for you. You have consumer choice, yay! This goes directly against your argument that somehow Apple has destroyed albums and good music.

It's contributing to the demise of proper music by allowing music to be treated like "pick & mix sweeties". Yes, I'm a complete and utter music snob, it's my prime hobby and if you don't have the patience to sit down, relax and enjoy a really good piece of music then stay away from it and go find something else to do with your time.

So, the only valid form of musical expression is the album?

I've got a news-flash for you: there was once this thing called "the single" - it was a small record with one track on each side. The music industry thrived on it for a long time. Apple didn't invent it.

And one of my favourite bands and probably the biggest rock band in the world currently, AC/DC, does not allow their music to be sold on iTunes.

But AC/DC is one of the few bands big and successful enough to be able to do that and survive financially. In any case, it doesn't bolster your argument about albums, because AC/DC songs stand alone very well, and their albums aren't generally "concept" albums in the vein of Pink Floyd, The Beatles or David Bowie. Plenty of radio stations play single AC/DC tracks without playing the whole album.

it's not like AC/DC are starving for money, but if they released on iTunes, they would probably make even more money.

However, that era is not over because there are now more channels pumping out trashy music videos.

But they are increasingly irrelevant because of things like Youtube and iTunes.

Contributing to the destruction, yes.

This is the same bogus argument we've seen for hundreds of years. The printing press is destroying the manuscript. The typewriter is destroying handwriting. Photography is destroying painting. The VCR is destroying TV. The CD is killing music. DVD is killing the cinema.

People keep making these stupid arguments, yet art keeps evolving and adapting.

I have glanced in the iTunes store on occasions, even though I will never pay for a music download, but I didn't get the impression that it was selling much in the way of indie music - it seems to be full of exactly the same plastic trash that I see on the supermarket shelves to be honest.

You haven't looked very far, obviously.

Jamendo, Spotify and Last FM all seem to be doing a much better job of bringing indie music to the masses than the iTunes store does

That doesn't make much sense, because those services aren't widely used by the masses, but iTunes is. And iTunes gives decent profits to indie bands who use it.

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[pandrijeczko]

No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.

Oh, I see. So Amazon and much smaller download sites were able to avoid selling DRM music in the first place but *BIG BAD APPLE* was coerced...

Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM. It had nothing to do with public outcry.

But Amazon started out selling non-DRM music when they started with zero market share. Sorry, your explanation doesn't wash.

Good for you. You have consumer choice, yay! This goes directly against your argument that somehow Apple has destroyed albums and good music.

I didn't say "destroyed", I said "destroying"...

But AC/DC is one of the few bands big and successful enough to be able to do that and survive financially. In any case, it doesn't bolster your argument about albums, because AC/DC songs stand alone very well, and their albums aren't generally "concept" albums in the vein of Pink Floyd, The Beatles or David Bowie. Plenty of radio stations play single AC/DC tracks without playing the whole album.

But I've heard individual Pink Floyd, Beatles and Bowie songs played on the radio also.

it's not like AC/DC are starving for money, but if they released on iTunes, they would probably make even more money.

The explanation given by AC/DC is that they prefer to be thought of as an "album" band and believe that's what their fans want also. Yes, they are probably big enough to have that much control over their music.

This is the same bogus argument we've seen for hundreds of years. The printing press is destroying the manuscript. The typewriter is destroying handwriting. Photography is destroying painting. The VCR is destroying TV. The CD is killing music. DVD is killing the cinema.

But some of that is true to a degree! The legibility of handwriting has decreased as people do everything on keyboards now... people who couldn't paint a picture are able to pick up a camera and take great photos... Traditional TV has been changed by the advent of being able to record and watch programs when you want to... Cinema attendances have stayed roughly constant but haven't grown as much as they would have done without DVD...

The only one I disagree with is "CD is killing music" because I don't think anyone ever said that - they said "Home taping is killing music".

You haven't looked very far, obviously.

I have checked quite a few indie albums actually because I use Amazon's preview service to listen to bits of a CD before I buy it - but that's only there some of the time and I think Apple and iTunes have around the same availability for downloadable music. But I accept I'm no expert because I don't (and won't) buy download music.

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[dangitman]

Oh, I see. So Amazon and much smaller download sites were able to avoid selling DRM music in the first place but *BIG BAD APPLE* was coerced...

Get your facts straight. Amazon wasn't selling MP3s until September 2007. The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. Apple started selling DRM-free tracks in April 2007.

As for the "much smaller download sites," how many of them were selling tracks from the major labels DRM-free? Oh, that's right, none of them were.

But Amazon started out selling non-DRM music when they started with zero market share. Sorry, your explanation doesn't wash.

Except they only did it after Apple's appeal to the music industry to remove DRM.

I didn't say "destroyed", I said "destroying"...

Yet you have no evidence for this. Not only do you have no evidence, but no rational argument for it.

But I've heard individual Pink Floyd, Beatles and Bowie songs played on the radio also.

Which makes your argument bunk, because that has been going on for a long time before iTunes.

The explanation given by AC/DC is that they prefer to be thought of as an "album" band and believe that's what their fans want also.

That might be what they prefer to think, but it's total bullshit.

But some of that is true to a degree! The legibility of handwriting has decreased as people do everything on keyboards now... people who couldn't paint a picture are able to pick up a camera and take great photos... Traditional TV has been changed by the advent of being able to record and watch programs when you want to... Cinema attendances have stayed roughly constant but haven't grown as much as they would have done without DVD...

And all of those changes are mostly for the better.

The only one I disagree with is "CD is killing music" because I don't think anyone ever said that - they said "Home taping is killing music".

Nope, plenty of people said that - because CDs sound to "clinical" and not "warm" enough, and they don't have great album cover artwork.

I have checked quite a few indie albums actually because I use Amazon's preview service to listen to bits of a CD before I buy it - but that's only there some of the time

I think you'll find that there are a lot more of them on iTunes than Amazon.

Was Apple ever pro-trust?

[SlappyBastard]

Ya know, cause I don't recall the words "trust" and "Apple" being mixed much. Apple doesn't trust anyone who isn't part of their narrowly focused ecosphere. Oh, wait . . . they mean trust as in corporations as a public good. Blurg.

Ok, everyone made their point about this

[pgmrdlm]

I still would like to see the full write up for the investigation because we do not know exactly what the agreement is. But as it stand and with the comments that have been made, the point has been made. I also am sure that there are contracts that are signed at the beginning of employment that you can not transfer any trade secretes to any other employer. So what would the purpose of this agreement be between these companies. Thanks for the feed back.

"Regulation bully" ? what kind of fucked up logic

[unity100]

is that ?

so, regulation is bullying, is this the deduction we are supposed to gleam from this ? and, its bad ?

who is going to keep the corporations in check then ? fairies ? corporations themselves ? alan greenspan, the father of that church has something to say about it :

In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[37] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”[65] Greenspan admitted fault[66] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

also, the article misses, but this is one of the sentences he spent during the testimony : "I cant understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves"

so, timothy, are you still selling that 'regulation bully' shit to us, despite the father of that church repented himself ? or have i mistaken the tone there ?

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[pandrijeczko]

Get your facts straight. Amazon wasn't selling MP3s until September 2007. The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. Apple started selling DRM-free tracks in April 2007.

What other inference is to be taken from your statement other than Apple fully supported DRM until such time as popular opinion and Amazon's entry into downloadable music *FORCED* them to move to a non-DRM format.

As for the "much smaller download sites," how many of them were selling tracks from the major labels DRM-free? Oh, that's right, none of them were.

Irrelevant statement - they were selling DRM-free music, it doesn't matter what label it came from.

Except they only did it after Apple's appeal to the music industry to remove DRM.

Crap. People hate DRM. Amazon started selling DRM-free music. If Apple hadn't removed DRM and *pleaded* with the music industry to let them sell DRM-free music, they would have lost out to Amazon. Purely a financial decision on Apple's part.

Yet you have no evidence for this. Not only do you have no evidence, but no rational argument for it.

I don't need to provide evidence for informed opinion. Deal with it.

That might be what they prefer to think, but it's total bullshit.

Yet you have no evidence for this. Not only do you have no evidence, but no rational argument for it. It works both ways.

And all of those changes are mostly for the better.

In your opinion, yet I'm supposed to provide you with evidence when I express an opinion. So how does that work?

Nope, plenty of people said that - because CDs sound to "clinical" and not "warm" enough, and they don't have great album cover artwork.

Where's your evidence? And if CDs sound clinical then so do digital downloads, possibly even more so due to lossy compression. So your point is what precisely?

I think you'll find that there are a lot more of them on iTunes than Amazon.

I have never found them. Therefore you need to provide evidence that I can. Otherwise I refute your statement.

and even then

[Uberbah]

Large market share != monopoly.

Nothing stops people from buying the same songs they can get through iTunes from other sellers at comparable prices. And as the Apple-haters keep pointing out, there are plenty of cheaper mp3 players available. So you should be able to have a similar experience listening to the same songs for less money.

Re:Will You Leave AAPL Alone Already

[dangitman]

What other inference is to be taken from your statement other than Apple fully supported DRM until such time as popular opinion and Amazon's entry into downloadable music *FORCED* them to move to a non-DRM format.

Are you completely insane? Apple offered DRM-free tracks before Amazon did. So, how is it logically possible that apple offering DRM-free tracks was caused by Amazon?