Apple at it again did not learn from the ebook fiasco

[Barcey]

This seems to align with Michael Bromwich's latest report.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0XD1L120150416

It appears they've been too busy ignoring their new "comprehensive and effective compliance program" to find time to meet with him.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

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.

They're playing catchup because they missed the boat on music streaming.

They need to strip the freemium customers from Spotify and Pandora to force at least some of them to sign up for their service. At this point they are dead last, behind Microsoft, behind Amazon, even behind Sony's defunct service.

On ebooks they were only two years behind Amazon and even with the conspiracy they haven't been able to touch them; on streaming they are over seven years late. Agency got them price parity and a distant second place at best so just matching prices won't get them anywhere; they need to be cheaper.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by 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.

How is less choice and the removal of the free tier better for the consumer?

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

they need to be cheaper.

I disagree. What they NEED is to stop trying to be everything to everyone. Its not working and its making Apple fans like me just get fed up with the nonsense. Some fans think Apple can do no wrong. Some of those who hate Apple think it can do no right. The truth is somewhere in the middle. And since Steve Jobs died, they have lost the plot. He wasnt god, but he knew what would work for the company and for the users. Tim Cook seems to be a nice bloke, but IMO he has not got the nous that Jobs had, and people like Sir Jony are just ruining things.

Colour me discontented.

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by kyteflyer

I disagree. What they NEED is to stop trying to be everything to everyone. Its not working and its making Apple fans like me just get fed up with the nonsense. Some fans think Apple can do no wrong. Some of those who hate Apple think it can do no right. The truth is somewhere in the middle. And since Steve Jobs died, they have lost the plot. He wasnt god, but he knew what would work for the company and for the users. Tim Cook seems to be a nice bloke, but IMO he has not got the nous that Jobs had, and people like Sir Jony are just ruining things.

Colour me discontented.

They are following jobs playbook here. He was the one behind the eBook as well as the engineer collusion. Apple would have stopped growing at the rate it is if Jobs was still here as he was an obstinate guy would not have followed the market and gone for a bigger screen on iPhone nor would he have patched things up with Samsung and moved back from litigation to insure they have access to the best tech for processors and flash drive where Samsung is becoming the market leader.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Any stick to beat them with. Just take a couple of vague rumors and run with it.

[SteveEisenberg]

This supports the thread headline:

Apple Stock Slipping Amid U.S. Antitrust Probe

I'm highly skeptical of stock market analysis such as in my last link, but post it for those who think differently.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Any stick to beat them with. Just take a couple of vague rumors and run with it.

I don't really know whether stories broken by The Verge usually pan out. Anyone know their track record?

Bloomberg, which I suppose is reliable, is repeating much of it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-for-new-beats

Now, since I'm not a customer, and what with their being so rich and all, Apple-bashing doesn't bother me.

[pickyaxe]

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.

Furthermore, students (which I would guess is a very significant portion of Spotify's customers) get to pay 5$ instead of 10$ for the same subscription. I'm guessing this price tier will disappear if Apple gets their way.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This supports the thread headline:

Apple Stock Slipping Amid U.S. Antitrust Probe

I'm highly skeptical of stock market analysis such as in my last link, but post it for those who think differently.



I don't really know whether stories broken by The Verge usually pan out. Anyone know their track record?

Bloomberg, which I suppose is reliable, is repeating much of it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-for-new-beats

Now, since I'm not a customer, and what with their being so rich and all, Apple-bashing doesn't bother me.

Bloomberg actually isn't repeating much of it. For example Bloomberg says
"The FTC's investigators, still in the early stages, of their inquiry, are asking whether Apple’s efforts will change the way music labels work with other streaming services, for example curtailing ad-supported music and pushing more songs into paid tiers of service at higher rates, according to one of the people.

Apple hasn’t made such demands on the labels, according to the music-industry executives."

The whole point of the Verge article, on the other hand, is "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.", which is the exact opposite of what Bloomberg said.

Shrill articles about how mean ol' Apple is at it again feeds the prejudice of the anti-Apple group and drives ad hits up, the point of such articles.

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

...Apple would have stopped growing at the rate it is if Jobs was still here...

Thats what they thought when they kicked him out: they brought him back, and his vision rescued the company from certain death. Its going to coast along for a while, but ultimately, they will need another visionary like Jobs to get them back on track.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Bloomberg actually isn't repeating much of it. For example Bloomberg says
"The FTC's investigators, still in the early stages, of their inquiry, are asking whether Apple’s efforts will change the way music labels work with other streaming services, for example curtailing ad-supported music and pushing more songs into paid tiers of service at higher rates, according to one of the people.

Apple hasn’t made such demands on the labels, according to the music-industry executives."

The whole point of the Verge article, on the other hand, is "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.", which is the exact opposite of what Bloomberg said.

Shrill articles about how mean ol' Apple is at it again feeds the prejudice of the anti-Apple group and drives ad hits up, the point of such articles.

No.
Having been caught doing nasty things and corrected by the courts in the past causes "prejudice" against Apple.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Any stick to beat them with. Just take a couple of vague rumors and run with it.

Any personal political-economical philosophy to manufacture a victim with.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Bloomberg actually isn't repeating much of it. For example Bloomberg says
"The FTC's investigators, still in the early stages, of their inquiry, are asking whether Apple’s efforts will change the way music labels work with other streaming services, for example curtailing ad-supported music and pushing more songs into paid tiers of service at higher rates, according to one of the people.

Apple hasn’t made such demands on the labels, according to the music-industry executives."

The whole point of the Verge article, on the other hand, is "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.", which is the exact opposite of what Bloomberg said.

Shrill articles about how mean ol' Apple is at it again feeds the prejudice of the anti-Apple group and drives ad hits up, the point of such articles.

I'm not saying that the following isn't true, but it *is* exactly what music-industry executives would say if the opposite were true. There's not enough info to make any kind of claims yet.

Apple hasn’t made such demands on the labels, according to the music-industry executives.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I'm not saying that the following isn't true, but it *is* exactly what music-industry executives would say if the opposite were true. There's not enough info to make any kind of claims yet.

Nope.
But the accusations fit the pattern of their culture of collusion and the context and their history makes them suspect even on those (rare) occasions when they are innocent.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I'm not saying that the following isn't true, but it *is* exactly what music-industry executives would say if the opposite were true. There's not enough info to make any kind of claims yet.

It's also exactly what the music-industry executives would say if the accusations are totally baseless.