Apple at it again did not learn from the ebook fiasco

[Dopedangel]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/4/854...tify-streaming

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are looking closely into Apple’s business practices in relation to its upcoming music streaming service, according to multiple sources. The Verge has learned that Apple has been pushing major music labels to force streaming services like Spotify to abandon their free tiers, which will dramatically reduce the competition for Apple’s upcoming offering. DOJ officials have already interviewed high-ranking music industry executives about Apple’s business habits, but it appears the FTC has taken the lead in recent weeks.

[johnnyb]

What do you expect, it's part of their entrepreneurial DNA, forcing exclusivity and lack of alternatives.
This time they will be tried according to their home-made precedent

[rcentros]

What sleazeballs.

[tubemonkey]

Apple plans on charging $7.99 for Beats, which is $2 less than what the other major players charge. Apple's strategy is to get the music industry to pull the plug on ad-supported free streaming in the hopes that those who got it free will then migrate to Beats for $7.99 instead of Spotify for $9.99.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Apple plans on charging $7.99 for Beats, which is $2 less than what the other major players charge. Apple's strategy is to get the music industry to pull the plug on ad-supported free streaming in the hopes that those who got it free will then migrate to Beats for $7.99 instead of Spotify for $9.99.

Sounds like collusion ... again.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Apple plans on charging $7.99 for Beats, which is $2 less than what the other major players charge. Apple's strategy is to get the music industry to pull the plug on ad-supported free streaming in the hopes that those who got it free will then migrate to Beats for $7.99 instead of Spotify for $9.99.

If Apple's goal really is true parity, then the question is if they plan to keep their service completely free or if the distinction they're making is merely an excuse for price fixing by arbitrary disqualification.

If that really is Apple's strategy and it works, then what's to stop them from suddenly introducing ads after the competition gnaws pippin-skin carpet?

[rdfry]

Just another addition to the list of reasons to hate this company.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Sounds like collusion ... again.

With one difference - they want to charge *less* than the competition?!?

[HarryT]

Nothing like pre-judging the outcome of an investigation, eh?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

With one difference - they want to charge *less* than the competition?!?

No. They want the free tier gone so they will be the "cheapest" option.
Now, three quarters of spotify customers pay nothing. If Apple has their way the cheapest option will be $8.

If your streaming usage isn't enough to justify $8 a month, every month, the result will be no service. It also raises the bar for new users; no trying it free to see if you use it enough to justify the cost.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No. They want the free tier gone so they will be the "cheapest" option.
Now, three quarters of spotify customers pay nothing. If Apple has their way the cheapest option will be $8.

If your streaming usage isn't enough to justify $8 a month, every month, the result will be no service. It also raises the bar for new users; no trying it free to see if you use it enough to justify the cost.

I realize that; I should have said charge less for paying customers.

[Jessica Lares]

They just want free music out of the picture. At the end of the day, everyone in the industry feels this way. They will follow Apple, and it will hurt Spotify and the others, but it is better for consumers and artists in the long run.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I realize that; I should have said charge less for paying customers.

This is part of the anti-trust scheme. By eliminating the free tier at their competitors, then charging less than their competitors for the paid tier, Apple is using their market/monopoly power to illegally disadvantage their competition.

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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

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.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by murg

This is part of the anti-trust scheme. By eliminating the free tier at their competitors, then charging less than their competitors for the paid tier, Apple is using their market/monopoly power to illegally disadvantage their competition.

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.

I was basically trying to say that it's crazy that Apple is now trying to under price. Who would've thought Apple would ever charge less than anybody else? Anyone that is actually charging a price, that is.