Apple at it again did not learn from the ebook fiasco

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

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

How noble -- they want to destroy a successful business, and business model, by COLLUDING with the studios for lower prices charged to THEM, so they can take their competitor's business. Textbook definition of collusion.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Now, three quarters of spotify customers pay nothing.

Actually they (we, in my case) pay the same way we pay television stations -- by watching ads on "free television."

[rcentros]

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.

I don't think so. Spotify's "free music" drives customers to buying albums. (That's certainly the way it works for me.) And, since Spotify pays, I believe, 70% of their revenue in royalties, it's not like the studios are getting left in the lurch. Besides, the DOJ monitor is still on Apple's campus when they pulled this stupidity.

[rcentros]

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.

Significantly harm their competition while helping Apple -- they want to pay less to charge less. So, ultimately, it would be the studios who would have to take a cut. I don't see them doing that.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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

I'm having trouble manufacturing victims for my own personal amusement. Despite my efforts, the majority disintegrate into hillocks of red, blue and green dust, which the kids like scoop up and toss at one another. What political-economic recipe are you using and do you preheat the oven to 410°? I happen to favor victims that groan when their crust is trident-ready.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I'm having trouble manufacturing victims for my own personal amusement.

See, that's where you're going wrong. Without a sincere belief in the utterly objective veracity of your own rhetoric, it won't work. Victim manufacturing is serious business. Amusement makes the end result a little too ... thin. Which ultimately means a lower sympathy to investment ratio.

[Shane R]

These anti-Apple threads are endlessly humorous.

The company is so big, has so much packed away in the bank, and has so much goodwill among it's customers though, that these government investigations and complaints from its competitors never, ever, amount to any more than a bump in the road.

I do have a question though:

If Apple convinces the labels to force all the streaming services to eliminate their free tiers, and the labels do it, and from then on out all the streaming services compete on a level and even playing ground as far as price is concerned: has Apple really done anything wrong?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I do have a question though:

If Apple convinces the labels to force all the streaming services to eliminate their free tiers, and the labels do it, and from then on out all the streaming services compete on a level and even playing ground as far as price is concerned: has Apple really done anything wrong?

You mean aside from taking away my free streaming choices?

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You mean aside from taking away my free streaming choices?

Apple doesn't have the power to do it themselves. They're asking the labels to put the screws to the other streaming sites.


I think that's why this may have slightly more traction:

Apple charges a 30 percent fee toward any sales through its App Store, and that includes subscription services. That means if Spotify wants to sell its premium subscription service — which usually costs $9.99 a month — through the App Store, it has to raise the price 30 percent higher to $12.99 to pull in the same revenue, while Apple can still offer Beats at a lower price. Spotify and many others in the music industry believe Apple’s App Store tax gives them an unfair advantage over the competition.
-
"I get that there’s some administrative burden so they should get some kind of fee, but 30 percent is fucking bullshit," one music industry source said.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/855...tore-antitrust

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Apple doesn't have the power to do it themselves. They're asking the labels to put the screws to the other streaming sites.


I think that's why this may have slightly more traction:



http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/855...tore-antitrust

So does this mean that Apple gets 30% of the Amazon Prime fees? And the monthly fees for both Netflix and Hulu Plus? What if my daughter hooks her iPad up to my Amazon Prime account and Netflix account? Does that mean that Apple is now getting 30% of what I'm paying? Even though I've had both of those accounts for years, and set them both up using a PC, not an Apple device?

Shari

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by shalym

So does this mean that Apple gets 30% of the Amazon Prime fees? And the monthly fees for both Netflix and Hulu Plus? What if my daughter hooks her iPad up to my Amazon Prime account and Netflix account? Does that mean that Apple is now getting 30% of what I'm paying? Even though I've had both of those accounts for years, and set them both up using a PC, not an Apple device?

Shari

Apple gets 30% of anything sold in their app store. If you pay outside of the app store Apple doesn't get their cut. Any link to a website from an app isn't allowed either. I wonder if when you pay for something within an app if you're allowed to say that going to the website will be cheaper. Here's what happened with Tidal subscriptions - http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/29/85...usic-streaming

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

So does this mean that Apple gets 30% of the Amazon Prime fees? And the monthly fees for both Netflix and Hulu Plus? What if my daughter hooks her iPad up to my Amazon Prime account and Netflix account? Does that mean that Apple is now getting 30% of what I'm paying? Even though I've had both of those accounts for years, and set them both up using a PC, not an Apple device?

Shari

Apple only charges 30% for electronic sales, not physical goods, thus the normal Amazon app sells everything and anything, while the Kindle app directs you to the web page. Same with Netflix and Hulu Plus. Nothing goes to Apple. I believe that you sign up for the non-free versions of Pandora and Spotify via their web sites. I know that you can buy music from iTunes via Pandora, not sure about Spotify.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Apple gets 30% of anything sold in their app store. If you pay outside of the app store Apple doesn't get their cut. Any link to a website from an app isn't allowed either. I wonder if when you pay for something within an app if you're allowed to say that going to the website will be cheaper. Here's what happened with Tidal subscriptions - http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/29/85...usic-streaming

Kobo was forced to remove all references to their ebookstore from their iOS app.
Even in the help section.
Price of doing business with Apple's customers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Apple doesn't have the power to do it themselves. They're asking the labels to put the screws to the other streaming sites.

Them not having the power to do things by themselves and asking other people to help them by putting the screws to someone is exactly how they got into trouble in the first place.

Record labels = publishers
Free streaming sites = $9.99 Amazon best sellers

"How can we make money when people can stream for free?"
"Don't worry about it. A little birdie told me that soon no one will be streaming for free."

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Them not having the power to do things by themselves and asking other people to help them by putting the screws to someone is exactly how they got into trouble in the first place.

Here's what getting into antitrust trouble looks like:
http://www.law360.com/articles/85401...rust-jail-time

Getting in trouble would thus mean senior executives going to jail for criminal antitrust. Not only didn't the Department of Justice pursue that, I can't see them doing anything likely to push down the stock price. Apple may not be too big to fail, but I do believe it is too big to really punish.

The Apple executive who made the most incriminating statements, in terms of antitrust, was Steve Jobs. And he died before it would have been possible to indict him. But if Jobs lived, do any of us think he would now be in prison? I think not, because it would be so politically unpopular.