Apple at it again did not learn from the ebook fiasco

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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.

You're free, of course, to define "getting in antitrust trouble" as jail time for executives. But I don't see it that way. To me, someone sitting in jail serves very little purpose. If it's true that Apple is too big to punish with sanctions, then it's equally true that they're too big to punish by jailing a few of their executives. They'll just get more. You seem to be saying; "look to put someone in jail, or look the other way if that's not likely." That seems silly to me. That someone HAS been jailed before for antitrust violations does not imply that it is the only punishment worth pursuing.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To me, someone sitting in jail serves very little purpose.

I guess we are now getting pretty far away from books, but I'm going to myself if I implied something other than this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU7fkPnEOI

If a few Justice Department Antitrust Division press leaks can intimidate corporations into keeping my last link free, without punishing Apple executives, or the company's innocent stockholders, I won't be unhappy. It certainly is IMHO a less harmful use of public funds than going after book publishers.

Here's another link I much hope stays free:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05pU6l4PEJw

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Shane R

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?

Yes, they've colluded with the labels to unfairly gain an advantage. It would backfire on them anyhow. Do they really think "freemium" Spotifiy users would rush to Apple after Apple kills their ad-supported streaming service? Not - very - likely.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

Not forced. Made a business decision not to host a ebookstore in their iOS app because of the price.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Not forced. Made a business decision not to host a ebookstore in their iOS app because of the price.

Come again? Did you just say they made a business decision? Or am I reading this wrong? Is that how you sleep better at night? Well, of course it is legal what Apple is doing by wanting a 30% cut and making sure they get it. But I fail to see how that isn't forcing.

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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.

Jailing Apple executives for anti-trust violations wouldn't be an unpopular move. When you get right down to it, no one really cares about the Apple executives.

Jailing executives serves as a warning to other executives to not commit anti-trust violations. I ending up in jail is a viable result of an executive's proposed business strategy, that strategy will be adjusted until that risk goes away.

And don't think that Apple executives are safe from this. They are currently in the anti-trust doghouse, and if they are found guilty of a different one (or even not cooperating with the original sentence), the judge may decide to really drive home society's displeasure with such behaviour.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Come again? Did you just say they made a business decision? Or am I reading this wrong? Is that how you sleep better at night? Well, of course it is legal what Apple is doing by wanting a 30% cut and making sure they get it. But I fail to see how that isn't forcing.

Some companies do choose to pay the price.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by murg

Jailing Apple executives for anti-trust violations would be an unpopular move. When you get right down to it, no one really cares about the Apple executives.

Jailing executives serves as a warning to other executives to not commit anti-trust violations. I ending up in jail is a viable result of an executive's proposed business strategy, that strategy will be adjusted until that risk goes away.

And don't think that Apple executives are safe from this. They are currently in the anti-trust doghouse, and if they are found guilty of a different one (or even not cooperating with the original sentence), the judge may decide to really drive home society's displeasure with such behaviour.

The Earth will orbit the Moon before that happens, I think

It's instrumental to note that both the eBook and these music allegations deal with parts of Apples business that aren't even core to it's existence.

And as long as it's the small potatoes parts of its businesses, US judges will continue to render small potatoes responses to any convictions for wrongdoing.

[DiapDealer]

So yeah... unless someone's gonna get put in jail, let's just let little illegal stuff slide. And if a corp breaks laws in performing piddly portions of their business, let's ignore those too. Let's just focus on proceedings where we KNOW we can put some privileged white-collar exec in an orange jumpsuit! 'Cause you know ... antitrust is all about smackin' smug executives and nothing else. It's not about trying to look out for the consumer or anything like that.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So yeah... unless someone's gonna get put in jail, let's just let little illegal stuff slide. And if a corp breaks laws in performing piddly portions of their business, let's ignore those too. Let's just focus on proceedings where we KNOW we can put some priviledged white-collar exec in an orange jumpsuit! 'Cause you know ... antitrust is all about smackin' smug executives and nothing else. It's not about trying to look out for the consumer or anything like that.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And if a corp breaks laws in performing piddly portions of their business, let's ignore those too.

Do be fair. No one said ignore, just hew to a:

...a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_%28law%29

[murg]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Do be fair. No one said ignore, just hew to a:

If Apple is found guilty of the latest accusations, they are definitely exhibiting a pattern of illegality. This is what judges look for when deciding sentences. If there is a pattern of illegality, the RICO statues may kick in.

And while the music streaming service may be small potatoes inside of Apple, unless it is run completely independently (which we all know it isn't), the major strategy had to be approved by either the CEO or the board.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Come again? Did you just say they made a business decision? Or am I reading this wrong? Is that how you sleep better at night? Well, of course it is legal what Apple is doing by wanting a 30% cut and making sure they get it. But I fail to see how that isn't forcing.

Err, yes, it is a business decision.

Apple has created a highly successful consumer digital platform. They are then selling the right to utilize that platform, by demanding 30% shares in business done through that platform.

It is then up to businesses to decide whether they want to cooperate. Some do, some don't.
Yes, it is a very dirty move by Apple. It isn't fair to app makers. It also isn't forcing, they are free to focus on Android development/sales, which I hope they do.

"Forcing" would be if they needed to sell through an iOS app, and they couldn't without agreeing to those terms.
They don't need, they want.

(You can tell they weren't forced to pay 30%, because they chose instead to not sell through the app.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Err, yes, it is a business decision.

Apple has created a highly successful consumer platform. They are then selling the right to utilize that platform, by demanding 30% shares in all business done through that platform.

It is then up to businesses to decide whether they want to cooperate. Some do, some don't.
Yes, it is a very dirty move by Apple. It isn't fair to app makers. It also isn't forcing, they are free to focus on Android development/sales, which I hope they do.

"Forcing" would be if they needed to sell through an iOS app, and they couldn't without agreeing to those terms.
They don't need, they want.

(You can tell they weren't forced to pay 30%, because they chose instead to not sell through the app.)

Once again, Apple only charges for Electronic sales, not for physical sales. Thus the Amazon app will let you buy, buy, buy but the Kindle app directs you to the web page to buy. Many vendors decide that making it easier to buy is worth the 30%, while other vendors decide that they would rather save the 30%. As you say it's purely a business decision. The dividing line makes a certain amount of sense once you realize where the requirement came about (Apple didn't start charging until they added in app purchases to the app store).

[eschwartz]

Oh well I am tremendously sorry that I didn't lay out the metaphorical neon signs indicating I was talking about... um... ebook retailers selling digital goods.

Thank you for your elucidation.