It's all just noise right now, but the United States Justice Department is purportedly having a "very preliminary conversation" with
Apple regarding the company's music business, wondering in particular if anything it's doing (or has done) would violate antitrust legislation. According to unnamed sources familiar with the situation, DoJ staff seem most interested in whether or not Apple's dominance in the market enabled it to unfairly prevent
Amazon's music service from exclusively debuting new songs. Beyond that, details of the investigation are few and far between, but it's coincidentally coming down on Cupertino when its
iTunes numbers are on the up and up. The latest NPD research figures show that over a quarter of the music purchased within the US is now procured through iTunes -- 28 percent, if you're looking for specifics, which is up 4 percentage points from Q1 2009. Meanwhile, Amazon has pulled into a tie with Walmart for second place, which may or may not coerce Wally World to ditch its morals and finally start stocking that uncensored version of
My World 2.0.
posted May 27th 2010 10:44AM
@admlshake
What problem? How is not promoting an album a problem?
@Jack
The problem being a federal investigation.
Justin beiber... EXPLICIT? I thought he sings about candies, toy cars and stuff.
@RadiXe
And biting his lips constantly.
This isn't really related, but didn't France tell Apple that they couldn't distribute iTunes in their country unless they opened up the songs and sync ability to other mp3 players? Did anything ever happen with that?
@admlshake .. I don't think so. The issue was mainly that Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to other MP3 player manufacturers. Of course once the labels let them remove the DRM the issue kind of sorted itself out.
@taligent that was more likely a Label issue than an Apple one. the Labels don't want folks being able to buy something cheaper overseas etc. In parallel they want the extra money of making you buy an ipod version, a zune version etc.
but as you say, once Apple got them to drop DRM it isn't an issue.
It's a clever ruse for the DoJ to download copious amounts of "the Biebs"
not trying to troll here, but the itunes store is for chumps. I prefer Amazon's store--hell, they've got a lot of really great albums in their 100 for $5 on a regular basis.
@Rick James
Bu "chumps" I can only assume you mean "people who want higher quality songs and better selection." Apple has the same deal as Amazon does with the record labels. They both sell hot singles for $1.29, and other singles anywhere from $.99 to $69.
But Amazon's songs are worse quality and their selection isn't as good.
@Jack
Please elaborate on 'worse' quality. Both sell files of the same bitrate. And both are lossy at that. So unless you're buying music online that only sells lossless audio tracks (HDtracks comes to mind) you're not going to hear the difference. Of course I can only assume you're listening to your music on Bose equipment, with monster cables, decoded with itunes...because thats what the folks at best buy told you was 'high end' audio...
they should have stayed a small niche company if they wanted to keep running their company like the SS
@SteveyAyo
Godwin's Law? Really? As I pointed out above, Apple isn't actually doing anything wrong, so please explain your Nazi reference. You know, using facts and not your misguided opinions.
Sort of an odd title. "While itunes dominance continues?" Suggesting what? Apple inc can't be affected? Maybe they did nothing wrong but It's kinda too early to know anything.
@TechBlogger
Not really. It's not illegal in any way to simply not promote an album. I wouldn't say it's "too early" to pick out the bullshit in this case. Apple owns the iTunes store, they can promote or not promote whatever the hell they want.
The end.
@Jack Exactly. with the street date exemption given to Amazon anyone that wants the item is more likely to go get it there. Law of quicker gratification and all that.
So why would Apple waste marketing space on something that won't get any sales (or a lot less) cause Amazon snatched it, when they could give the space to someone else who would benefit from it.
Last time I checked, there was no law against placing conditions on who gets your prime marketing space. Or about wanting it exclusively. If the other side doesn't like the rule, they don't agree to the deal.
HOWEVER using your dominance as an online retailer to get labels to let you violating a sales condition that all other retailers (online and brick) are required to follow, that could be something amiss. And that is possibly what Amazon is up to. Because those Daily Deals were at least one day before the established Street Date for everyone else. And the point of the whole Street Date was to level the playing field and create fair competition because no one had the advantage of an earlier release.
Except now it's no one but Amazon.
Where's the DoJ on that issue
Let me get this straight --
Big, colluding record labels convince the DoJ to investigate their business relationship with singular (yet powerful) Apple.
The irony would be delicious if it weren't such a sad joke of a situation.
If you think Apple is the problem in this situation, you either lack a general understanding of the anti-collusion laws in America or you (or your superiors) receive enough campaign contributions from the entertainment industry/lobby to look the other way. Apple has done nothing wrong. That the DoJ would listen to the music labels, of all enterprises, is itself a self-sufficient and glaring commentary on the level of corruption in politics in our country today.
Let me get this straight. First iTunes was a foolish and unworkable idea. It would never be successful and a bad model for music. Now they're saying its an unfair business practice, which Apple is abusing. WOW
not surprisingwhen companies get big they act like bullies and Apple is just as bad as Microsoft... one on software and the other on media
@xconan
Um, no. You haven't been paying attention. Amazon is the one getting special treatment by being allowed to release an album before its street date. All Apple is doing is saying they're not going to promote that album. So what's the problem?
@Jack
it's not about apple supporting this album or music, it's about apple intimidating other businesses that provide support to their competitors i.e. "But what may not seem as consumer-friendly is the accusation that Apple tried to squash a competitor's effort to offer discounted music"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/biztech/05/27/cnet.itunes.apple/index.html?hpt=T2
I have it on good authority that Steve Jobs was seen at the shredder this morning.
Way to use our tax dollars!. Yeah let´s bailout the banks and main street which fucked the world economy up... Apple is the real enemy here.
wait...28% of the marketshare constitutes a monopoly? apple doesn't even have more than 50%, much less 30% of the legal mp3 business and last i checked when MSFT was being investigated for IE, IE had like 80%+ of the marketshare.
Although this begs a interesting question...how do companies make money off of browser software that is given away for free?
The hate on Apple never ends, and so completely doesn't make any sense. In this case, Apple worked to free download music from DRM, which benefited everyone. You can buy songs on iTunes or Amazon or anywhere and play them on your music player, computer or whatever. Apple was at the forefront of making the market competitive. Sure, emusic had DRM free music before Apple, but emusic didn't have the major labels at that time and didn't look to ever have them. It was only recently that they got major labels on board, and it was Apple's efforts that allowed for. Again, Apple's efforts made the market more competitive and everyone benefited, except perhaps the music labels. Hmm.
please stop showing justin bieber