One Bad Apple

re: One Bad Apple

lotsamystuff — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:09:37 GMT

@mike galos: "Apple has to live under those rules whether there's been a ruling of monopoly or not. And they aren't. "

Citation, please? Has there been a court ruling I'm not aware of?

@subzero: I think it's time for your Valium.

"So thanks, lotsa. You just helped me prove that Apple could be seen with 4 potential violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act."

*sigh*

Again, from the FTC site:

www.ftc.gov/.../maintain.htm

"Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices."

Has Apple's "monopoly" in music led to higher prices? Certainly, the lower-priced competition from Amazon (compatible with the iPod) would indicate "no". iPods aren't the lowest-priced mp3 players out there, either. And the iPhone hasn't maintained any kind of premium pricing (look at the recent Palm Treo for a perfect example).

If anyone should be charged with these kinds of violations, it's the record labels who encourage price-fixing, determine who can and can't offer DRM-free music, and are actively manipulating the market.

Based on the FTC's guidelines above, I don't see any problem for Apple. But then, I'm not a zealot.

re: One Bad Apple

shark47 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:07:25 GMT

The problem is the same stuff that you can get away with when you don't have a dominant position in the market can get you into trouble when you do. Like I said earlier, if Chrome does become more popular, the issue of locking out rival web services will become important. The same goes for Apple. The car analogy is ridiculous. The engine is part of the car. You cannot buy an engine separately. That's like saying Apple should sell computers with AMD chips. A better analogy would be Dell saying their desktops will work only with Dell monitors.

re: One Bad Apple

tayme — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:59:21 GMT

@Doc - You beat me to the punch on that one. That is pretty close to how I would have responded to Mikes comment - "They'd also be subject to bundling charges since you cannot get an iPhone with Zune replacing iPod as the music player. And you can't get the equivalent iPod software as an add-on to other phones." Your argument regarding suing Porche for not selling Fords should actually read something like this - "I could sue Porche for not selling me a 911 with a Ford 351 Cleveland engine". This is an argument that many, including me, have tried in the past when defending MS for bundling IE.

--tayme

re: One Bad Apple

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:45:08 GMT

Oh, and Dude1313

Take each point you made about Apple and apply it to Microsoft and you'll see they don't hold up so well under "maintain a monopoly" rules.

In short, if Microsoft can't do it in markets where it's dominent, Apple can't do it in markets they dominate. (downloaded music and related products, possibly OS X based computers, etc)

re: One Bad Apple

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:42:21 GMT

Dude1313

"As far as anti-trust: as a member of neither political party I can objectively say this, there is no way the DoJ is going against anyone on Anti-Trust. If MS isn't getting split up/ hand slapped, then no one in the Computer industry is. Whoever wins in November is not going to be messing with any comapny in today's economy. "

Exactly Backwards

Antitrust law is there to protect the consumer (especially in tough times) and to protect a competitive market (especially in tough times) and not to protect the ability of an entrenched monopoly to abuse their power.

As for the political ramifications, a Obama administration would have little choice in persuing this to make sure there was no question of showing favoritism to Apple due to Obama's friendship with Apple board member, Al Gore. This is much the same as when the Clinton administration had to aggressively pursue charges against Microsoft despite Bill Gates' friendship with President Clinton.

re: One Bad Apple

WebGuy3000 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:40:20 GMT

DRWAM said:

"If you don't like it, don't buy them. If you do buy them, don't cry that you must do things their way as you should have done the research on the usage rules."

Wow. Doc, in two short sentences you have cut to the heart of this thread, and virtually negated just about every comment that come before. Well said.

re: One Bad Apple

DRWAM — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:19:40 GMT

BTW, I have been posting a lot the past few days because I've been stuck at home on call [rather than trolling], and a sustained a partial hamstring tear running. Yep Sub, I should have been a little more careful with Creatine. But I'm getting old and lifting is getting tougher, and the dang stuff works a little, and is legal.

Doc

re: One Bad Apple

DRWAM — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:15:47 GMT

That is a good point Mike, Also, iTunes does not need to add all the software that it wants you to add, obviously, although we are given a choice. Also, if it were illegal, Google and Yahoo toolbars would not be offered on just about every free app on the web.

Still there is more to these anti-trust laws/acts then the few lines typed here.. There is an entire background , including qualifications that we don't have here or even understand. Apple, MS and other companies have every right to protect their intellectual properties. Otherwise, we could sue a Porsche dealer for not selling a Ford [or Lotus for Mike and me]. Heart would not be able to protect 'Barracuda' for use with Palin's ads and any Musician could not sue for improper use of their music [Beatles on iTunes]. Mr Coffee filters do not work in Melita coffee makers, so I should sue. Third party companies sign agreements in order to create software for MS or Apple and they must abide by the agreement, otherwise make it for someone else. MP3 players use software interfaces to add music to them. MS does it as well as Sansa. If you don't like it, don't buy them. If you do buy them, don't cry that you must do things their way as you should have done the research on the usage rules. Companies should listen to consumers, but don't have to commit to every demand. There's reasons why they can or cannot, and some of them are legit...while others obviously are self protective.

re: One Bad Apple

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:13:01 GMT

BTW:

If I don't respond to a posting directed at me, it's because I'm going to be at the same Microsoft Virtualization conference as Paul for most of today.

If you want to follow along, the conference URL is http://www.getvirtualnow.com and they will be webcasting the keynote/product launch starting at 9AM Pacific at www.microsoft.com/.../default.mspx

re: One Bad Apple

Dude1313 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:11:14 GMT

SubZero good points but here is where some of it falls apart:

- Google- Last I looked there were plenty of other search engines... Google didn't/doesn't unfairly lock them out.

- MP3 players- There are other MP3 players out there besides the iPod. Why does Apple have to allow them to use their software or sell them MP3s. And on the subject of MP3... why are the record companies forcing Apple to DRM their files, but sell them elsewhere unlocked? If the record companies allowed fopr unlocked files at the store, problem solved.

- OSX. Their are other computers out there which one can freely use for Windows. 4% of the market as is gleefully pointed out time and again is not a monopoly, not even close. Kernel Panics? Where does it say that Apple has support PC hardware? If you are talking about Psystar that is a completely different set of issues that they can't hope to win, and ff it comes remotely close to being winnable, Apple will bury them in appeals, that is if a summary injunction (which seems at least a possibility) doesn't come first.

Barring that Apple can simply stop selling the OS in a box, big loss for everyone and where will the consumer be then? By Bye Pystar's business "model".

As far as anti-trust: as a member of neither political party I can objectively say this, there is no way the DoJ is going against anyone on Anti-Trust. If MS isn't getting split up/ hand slapped, then no one in the Computer industry is. Whoever wins in November is not going to be messing with any comapny in today's economy.

re: One Bad Apple

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:08:16 GMT

Subzero

On the exclusivity contract with AT&T and iPhone some notes:

1) Exclusive distribution of the iPhone is a trickier issue since Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on the phone side. However, since iPhone could easily be ruled a version of the iPod (iPod touch with extra telephony features) they'd have a hard time without pulling the iPod features.

2) They'd also be subject to bundling charges since you cannot get an iPhone with Zune replacing iPod as the music player. And you can't get the equivalent iPod software as an add-on to other phones. Precedent would have Apple required to allow vendors to offer iPhone with other music players as default, provide a user friendly way to pick which music player is the default and offer an iPhone N with no music player bundled for less money in the EU market.

3) Since exclusive contracts are the norm in the cell phone business and since it falls under all those complex telecom rules, it becomes a tricker case on the exclusivity charge. The bundling charge, however, is awfully suspect, though, based on both the DOJ and EU interpretations of bundled middleware.

But, again, I Am Not A Lawyer

re: One Bad Apple

chuckb84 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:07:15 GMT

"Apple's a big company. They can't behave like they did when Jobs was trying to stave off bankruptcy over a decade ago. And really, that's all this is; Corporate immaturity."

Oh, my, now that's funny. The best example I know of "corporate immaturity" is Mr. Chair-thrower:

www.theregister.co.uk/.../chair_chucking

"Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking ***. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."

Now, that's mature, isn't it.

Microsoft, not Apple, is a convicted monopolist. Still being fined by the EU. Read the details:

www.roughlydrafted.com/.../paul-thurrott-calls-apple-“the-bad-guys”-of-microsofts-300-million-ads/#more-2385

Guys, as you all love to point out when Paul posts his intermittent, "Apple sucks and the proof is in the marketshare numbers", MIcrosoft---not Apple--controls 90+% of the desktops in the world. A BILLION users, remember?

So, which way do you want it? Apple is an irrelevant niche player or Apple is a huge controlling monopolist threat (which I find just hilarious coming from Windows advocates).

Decide which of these mutually exclusive views you want to have, then we can talk seriously.

re: One Bad Apple

shark47 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:02:53 GMT

I think a lot of Apple fans view Apple as 'Robin Hood' in the MobileMe/IE issue, trying to steal marketshare from the rich (M$) and give it to the poor (Apple, Mozilla, etc.).

"But that's probably a different thing somehow, isn't it?"

No. It's not. It's just as irritating.

re: One Bad Apple

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:53:53 GMT

Subzero

Exactly right.

What I'd add on the MobileMe/IE7 issue is that since the MobileMe product does, in fact, work with IE7 (as people here have pointed out, ironically, in defense of Apple) and since Apple has IE7 specific features (sharing of IE7 Favorites), Apple has intentionally disparaged a competitor's product with the intent of shutting out the use of that competitor's product with an Apple product that's a part of the iPod/iPhone product line.

If it didn't work correctly and it was discovered at the last moment, Apple might have been OK with putting up a notice like "IE 7 is not supported at this time. We will update the MobileMe page when we add that feature" and, as long as it was true and they were working on it seriously. Putting up a note disparaging IE 7 while MobileMe actually works with it and, in fact, has features tied to it, is just plain bad.

re: One Bad Apple

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:44:20 GMT

Lotsa

I'm well aware that it is not illegal to be a monopoly (or that it even makes you a bad guy)

What it does do, however, is mean you have different rules that you have to play by because you now fall under the "maintain a monopoly" rules.

Apple has to live under those rules whether there's been a ruling of monopoly or not. And they aren't.