View Single Post
Old 05-05-2015, 05:02 PM   #14
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by murg View Post
The problem isn't that Apple is charging less. The problem is that they are colluding to other companies to set up the conditions that significantly harm their competition.
That is where the parallel to the agency conspiracy comes in: in both cases they are colluding with suppliers to restrict what their competitors can do.

The claim is that Apple is using its market power in one market (digital downloads) to limit the way their competitors can respond to Apple's belated entry to a new market (streaming).

That is classic antitrust straight out of the Standard Oil and AT&T playbook.

It is one thing if the labels want to end the freemium model and act on their own but the moment Apple coordinates with them in order to get into the streaming business is when the feds' alarms go off. What Spotify and Pandora and (yes) Amazon can do should not be conditioned to Apple's wishes.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote