Apple Tells DoJ It Did Nothing Wrong; "Amazon Monopolistic"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]The richest company in the world calls Amazon monopolistic? The company that wont allow apps into their app store if they don't like them or don't want to compete? The company that doctored photos to win a case? The company that wont let you install their OS on anything but the hardware they say?Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....[/citation]

Firstly, where's your brain? Choosing to allow or not allow apps in an app store, is entirely the right of the company who owns said app store, and in exercising that right they are not doing anything monopolistic, whatsoever. Of course, said app store remains the most popular and the most profitable, so obviously it isn't affecting the customers in such a negative way that they don't want to use it. You claim Apple 'doctored photos' yet clearly if this were true it would have been pointed out by any competent lawyers in the legal case, and the decision clearly reflects the fact that the court and legal system disagree with your accusation. Of course, even if it were true it would be nothing to do with any monopoly. Finally, you can install their operating systems on any pc so I don't really think you have a clue on that one.

So to accuse them of pot calling kettle black? Simply ridiculous based on the irrelevant arguments you presented.
 

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]I ask you what is the percentage of music sold in iTunes when compared to other digital stores?[/citation]

I ask you how that is at all relevant to whether or not there is a monopoly (a monopoly meaning there is no alternative, not that said alternatives are popular) ?
 

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]So by your definition there isn't such a thing as a monopoly. Windows isn't a monopoly, Google search isn't a monopoly,... since no one forces you to buy or use anything.[/citation]

100% incorrect. A monopoly means that GIVEN THAT YOU WANT SOMETHING, there is only one place to get that specific item, given that said item is a generic item such as a phone, music, books, etc.

Clearly this is not the case with Apple, but it can exist in other circumstances.
 

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Kevin Parish[/nom]The third sentence is just silly. The Department of Justice claims that the ebook price hike hurt customers, but if anything, it hurt publishers given that many customers may not see the value in an electronic book that costs more than a paperback. But Apple doesn't see it that way: the higher tag has somehow made ebooks more "interactive and engaging," or rather, they're a much better product than before. Oh, and the publishers actually set the prices -- Apple merely took its 30-percent cut, as the fourth sentence indicates.[/citation]

The most biased drivel I've ever read from Kevin Parish, and that's saying a lot.

The interactive and engaging elements and features which were added to hundreds of books following Apples recent release, which added new interactive elements not available on other devices, was widely documented, even on this site, so I would have thought Kevin had a little less ignorance on the subject. But then he's an anti-Apple idiot so what should we expect?
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]100% incorrect. A monopoly means that GIVEN THAT YOU WANT SOMETHING, there is only one place to get that specific item, given that said item is a generic item such as a phone, music, books, etc. Clearly this is not the case with Apple, but it can exist in other circumstances.[/citation]
Like I stated then there's basically no such a thing as a monopoly. I for example consider that Windows is in a monopoly position, even though there are alternatives.
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]I ask you how that is at all relevant to whether or not there is a monopoly (a monopoly meaning there is no alternative, not that said alternatives are popular) ?[/citation]
So you're saying that Apple was lying when they said that Amazon was monopoly in the ebook market?
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
550
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]So you're saying that Apple was lying when they said that Amazon was monopoly in the ebook market?[/citation]
amazon didnt have a monopoly on the ebook market. Like the article says and how Ive noticed before ibooks came out, the ebook prices were very competitive. Borders, B&N, and amazon were the major distributors at the time and they had more or less the same prices and constant deals. It was the dominance and superiority of the kindle that gave amazon its 90% market share. This is not monopoly because there was competing ebooks and ebook readers in the same price range, only that the kindle was the preffered one by alot.

apple is just using that "90% market share" line to make people think they had a monopoly.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
0
"The DoJ's accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true," Apple stated. "The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then, customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we've allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore."

WOW , typical apple story twisting, and word Re-defining , story twisting because they are trying to say that because amazon is a monopoly what they did was not anti-trust. word re defining because they are calling amazon forcing publishers to a lower price an a "monopolistic tactic", keeping consumer prices low is ANY thing but monopolistic , oh wait i for got , the all mighty god steve is speaking from beyound the grave , 100's of years of a word definition , must be wrong and the laws must be wrong because apple said so !

F-CK APPLE, if they get away with this i swear to the REAL god , that i will go out of my way to ensure that NOBODY i know ever buys apple products.


amazon is any thing but monoplistic , the link millions of mom and pop stores across america threw their website so amazon customers can buy from those guys as well. that is the furtheriest thing from a monopoly that a company can get.

i hope uncle same shoves a big goverment c--- up apple's a-- in this law suit.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]So by your definition there isn't such a thing as a monopoly. Windows isn't a monopoly, Google search isn't a monopoly,... since no one forces you to buy or use anything.[/citation]
actually you and the other guy are both WRONG


1. exclusive control of the market supply of a product or service

This is taken from the world english dictionary

ok now look at the facts ---

1. windows is not the only OS availble on the market so MS is not a monopoly there

2. xbox 360 is NOT the only game console , no monopoly there

3. MS , has no control of how much a unix , or linux OS cost , nor do they control how much a console cost , they just control their direct products cost , so there is NO MS monopoly, you can buy other consoles , and yes you can buy other operating systems for a computer, different web browsers and so on and so , by all definitions of the word MS HAS EVER BEEN A MONOPOLY

now same case for google , they are not the only web broswer, search engine , and there for they don't control the entire market in either so again not a monopoly.

where the other guy is wrong is in that , having a choice not to buy something deosn't equal no monopoly , having a choice to buy other products is what determines rather or not there is a monopoly in a given industry. if say white angel controlled all toilet paper sales in the entire world , then you could say there is a monopoly in the toilet paper market, however , just because you can choose not to buy toilet paper doesn't mean there is no monopoly. it's all about having alternatives to one , and where MS and google are concerned there are alternative choices , which is where you are wrong, and where apple is wrong in calling amazon a monopoly because even before the ipussy toys came out there were other companies doing e books , just most consumers chose to use amazon doesn't mean there is a monopoly. same applies to google and MS , if consumer's choose to use them, it doesn't mean there are magically no alternatives in the world.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. (This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market)."

Should clarify things. Since the DoJ is suing the law definition is relevant not the economical definition.

The more relevant and important thing to know is about competition laws though.

"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is law that promotes or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies.[1]

Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:

prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

Substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Competition law is closely connected with law on deregulation of access to markets, state aids and subsidies, the privatization of state owned assets and the establishment of independent sector regulators, among other market-oriented supply-side policies. In recent decades, competition law has been viewed as a way to provide better public services.[4] Robert Bork has argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[5]

Ideas about competitive law were published during the 18th century with such works as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including "restrictive practices", "the law of monopolies", "combination acts" and the "restraint of trade"."

Now this is the juicy bit and the part that is most relevant. Even if Apple isn't a monopoly which one could probably argue about depending on how you define the market, they very well can have violated antitrust laws.
 

motheninja

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2011
31
0
18,580
0
What is funny is the fact that there are so many Apple haters on this site, yet Toms will continue to publish Apple related news to get views from the raging fanboys of Android to come here and read and get pissed. Now I bet this comment will be flooded with Negative Reps from the douchebags but at least a couple people will read it:

1. The DoJ has NO CASE here people. You want to know why? Apple did not iniate any sort contract with Amazon to drive up prizes. Apple simply created more efficient and better laid out eBooks and charged a higher price. For example I bought a copy of Guinness Book of World Records 2012 on my Sisters Kindle. The book was terribly laid out, the pictures were out of line and just overall a mess.... The ipad version, was crisp and clean with interactive videos. Amazon was charging $4.95, Apple was charging $19.95.

2. Amazon has a monopoly.... They controlled 90% of the marketshare and were destroying numerous mom and pop book stores.... So where is the lawsuit there?
 

motheninja

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2011
31
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]biggiebody[/nom]A monopoly does not mean you are forced to buy something. It just means that there is one big company with no competition or not a lot. You didn't have to buy Windows in the past, you could have just continued using DOS. But Microsoft was a monopoly because they didn't really have any competition.Now Apple overall is not considered a monopoly by text book definition, but they are a kind of monopolizing company. Once you buy an apple product, you have absolutely no choice but to use their apple apps or product to make it work efficiently. Unless you want to void your warranty or something. But apple forces you to use their products and only their products, it's almost like you're stuck in a contract with apple once you buy one of their products. Of course you don't have to buy an Apple, but you don't have to buy a Windows base PC too, or an Ebook from Amazon. But once you do buy an Apple, you're stuck into buying only Apple things, which than technically becomes a type of monopoly.[/citation]


Okay, if you buy an Android Phone, you have to use the Android Marketplace? If you buy a Windows Computer, you have to use Windows Software? Your point makes no sense....
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
13
[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]Firstly, where's your brain? Choosing to allow or not allow apps in an app store, is entirely the right of the company who owns said app store, and in exercising that right they are not doing anything monopolistic, whatsoever. Of course, said app store remains the most popular and the most profitable, so obviously it isn't affecting the customers in such a negative way that they don't want to use it. You claim Apple 'doctored photos' yet clearly if this were true it would have been pointed out by any competent lawyers in the legal case, and the decision clearly reflects the fact that the court and legal system disagree with your accusation. Of course, even if it were true it would be nothing to do with any monopoly. Finally, you can install their operating systems on any pc so I don't really think you have a clue on that one.So to accuse them of pot calling kettle black? Simply ridiculous based on the irrelevant arguments you presented.[/citation]

Where's your brain? It has been proven in court that Apple used doctored photos and Apple has been called out on this in court already. As for how Apple handles their app store? It's not entirely wrong because it helps keep apps that would have been damaging (such as malware being passed as an app), but Apple uses their app store to keep a lot of competition out such as that of many of the large companies. For example, quite a few companies have made/tried to make an app for their customers, but Apple didn't like them, so Apple deprived their customers of said app.

Apple does not support non-Apple hardware running an Apple OS (Apple even sues some people who do this if they make certain mistakes. For example, some of the Hackintosh sites have been taken down repeatedly by Apple).

Google's Android Market is less *profitable* because it contains far more free apps. How profitable something is does not mean it is better.

You know what? Just because it is the responsibility of a company to choose to do something does not mean we can't call them out on making an amoral choice. Whether or not the person calling them out has a point is not a given, but in this case, biggiebody was right.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
13
[citation][nom]motheninja[/nom]What is funny is the fact that there are so many Apple haters on this site, yet Toms will continue to publish Apple related news to get views from the raging fanboys of Android to come here and read and get pissed. Now I bet this comment will be flooded with Negative Reps from the douchebags but at least a couple people will read it:1. The DoJ has NO CASE here people. You want to know why? Apple did not iniate any sort contract with Amazon to drive up prizes. Apple simply created more efficient and better laid out eBooks and charged a higher price. For example I bought a copy of Guinness Book of World Records 2012 on my Sisters Kindle. The book was terribly laid out, the pictures were out of line and just overall a mess.... The ipad version, was crisp and clean with interactive videos. Amazon was charging $4.95, Apple was charging $19.95. 2. Amazon has a monopoly.... They controlled 90% of the marketshare and were destroying numerous mom and pop book stores.... So where is the lawsuit there?[/citation]

I think that Apple colluding with eBook publishers for huge price hikes is perfect grounds for the DoJ to step in, especially considering that collusion is illegal. Amazon is not even a criminal in this case, just a victim. Also, I read Amazon eBooks every now and then and I've never had a problem such as what you describe. Amazon did not have a monopoly. They simply were willing to sell things at their proper prices and not be greedy. All of their competition wants huge prices (thus profits) out of greed. That they resorted to collusion instead of working out a deal with Amazon only helps to prove this to be correct.

Apple also does this supposedly giving a better product at several times the price in the computer markets. That it isn't letting Apple get even a tenth of the market just goes to show that Apple's methods aren't the best for the customers. That Apple's still richer than their competition despite having smaller market shares only shows that many of the comparatively few people who are buying Apple are spending large amounts of money on Apple.
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]motheninja[/nom]What is funny is the fact that there are so many Apple haters on this site, yet Toms will continue to publish Apple related news to get views from the raging fanboys of Android to come here and read and get pissed. Now I bet this comment will be flooded with Negative Reps from the douchebags but at least a couple people will read it:1. The DoJ has NO CASE here people. You want to know why? Apple did not iniate any sort contract with Amazon to drive up prizes. Apple simply created more efficient and better laid out eBooks and charged a higher price. For example I bought a copy of Guinness Book of World Records 2012 on my Sisters Kindle. The book was terribly laid out, the pictures were out of line and just overall a mess.... The ipad version, was crisp and clean with interactive videos. Amazon was charging $4.95, Apple was charging $19.95. 2. Amazon has a monopoly.... They controlled 90% of the marketshare and were destroying numerous mom and pop book stores.... So where is the lawsuit there?[/citation]
1) Apple didn't sign any kind of contract with Amazon, but did sit at the table with several publishers to discuss the rise of e-book prices. And that is Illegal.
2) Monopolies aren't illegal, what's illegal is if you abuse your position.
 

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Like I stated then there's basically no such a thing as a monopoly. I for example consider that Windows is in a monopoly position, even though there are alternatives.[/citation]

That makes no sense at all...

Windows isn't a monopoly, there is Linux, Unix, Mac OS etc available. But that doesn't mean that monopolies can't exist.

Take for example a drug company who finds a new miracle cure, and patents it. They would have a monopoly over that cure.

 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
639
0
18,930
1
[citation][nom]sublime2k[/nom]Seriously, who gives a fuck about Apple any more? Out of first 11 articles on Tom's Hardware, 4 are about Apple. Give it a rest already.[/citation]
I give a beep about apple!
Without proper knowledge of what the beep they're up to, I can't properly argument with our IT boss why I refuse to work with Apple branded products. I can't simply say 'because I don't like them' like I can when I'm off work. What I can do is try to argument against it.

We've already lost a minor battle as apple seems to have gifted our biggest customer a bunch of ipads for some education promotion thing, forcing us to potentially infect staff and customers with mrs. Bucket Syndrome. And those obsolete iGrenade 3 they sold us last year at half the price of a proper HTC phone didn't improve the situation.

So in short I CARE about those rotten apple articles, because I need information in order to defend myself.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
550
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]sublime2k[/nom]Seriously, who gives a fuck about Apple any more? Out of first 11 articles on Tom's Hardware, 4 are about Apple. Give it a rest already.[/citation]

Even if no one gives a f**ck it still causes reactions and reactions mean it get hits for the site... why do you think its so many articles about it at toms today? Its because so many click in, bash/back apple and then keep reading the interesting articles. If you don't like it its a saying "Dont feed the trolls" and by doing so make it appear as the articles themselves are more interesting.
 

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Where's your brain? It has been proven in court that Apple used doctored photos and Apple has been called out on this in court already.[/citation]

Firstly, you're gonna need to evidence this.
Secondly, if it was pointed out in court, then the legal system dealt with it, so the proper consequences will have happened.
Thirdly, once again I ask, where's your brain. Whether they did or did not doctor documents, as I already told you, that has nothing to do with being a monopoly.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]As for how Apple handles their app store? It's not entirely wrong because it helps keep apps that would have been damaging (such as malware being passed as an app), but Apple uses their app store to keep a lot of competition out such as that of many of the large companies. For example, quite a few companies have made/tried to make an app for their customers, but Apple didn't like them, so Apple deprived their customers of said app.[/citation]

Why did you write this massive lecture of irrelevant drivel? How does Apple doing what you describe constitute anything even remotely resembling a monopoly? It's simply them deciding what they want to offer their customers on their app store. The customers don't seem to mind, as I already explained, since the app store is the most popular. Please provide an example of a functionality the customers have been 'deprived of' for which there isn't an equivalent alternative? And even if you have one, once again, where's your brain? Even if Apple was depriving it's millions of very happy customers of certain apps - that has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Are you sensing a pattern here?

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Apple does not support non-Apple hardware running an Apple OS (Apple even sues some people who do this if they make certain mistakes. For example, some of the Hackintosh sites have been taken down repeatedly by Apple)[/citation]

Apple suing a site for whatever reason has nothing to do with suing people who install Mac OS, for example, on their PC's. There is nothing preventing you installing Mac OS on a normal PC, I know because I tried it myself. So you're simply wrong. And once again, I have to ask, where's your brain? Even if your lie about Mac OS being specific to Apple devices were true, that wouldn't have anything to do with whether they are a monopoly or not. Are you seeing the pattern yet?

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]
.Google's Android Market is less *profitable* because it contains far more free apps. How profitable something is does not mean it is better. [/citation]

There are more free apps on Android, just like there are more viruses. This is because Apple has quality control in their store, whereas Android does not. I don't know why you think your point has any relevance to a monopoly (the subject of this discussion, in case you forgot), but I also wonder where you believe anyone here said that iOS is better due to being profitable. It's better due to having more, higher quality apps, many of which Android doesn't have. The fact iOS is more profitable is probably related to this. Clearly, the number of free apps on Android isn't doing anyone any favours, since it still has fewer apps, less security, and has less profitability which means developers will always prioritise iOS first. This has been widely documented.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]
You know what? Just because it is the responsibility of a company to choose to do something does not mean we can't call them out on making an amoral choice. Whether or not the person calling them out has a point is not a given, but in this case, biggiebody was right[/citation]

Firstly - lets try and learn the pattern here. When you are (mistakenly) accusing a company of making an 'amoral' choice, you are not accusing said company of being a monopoly. So 'biggiebody' was clearly NOT correct (exactly as you are now mistaken). Secondly, how ridiculous to try and attribute any moral rules regarding what a company decides is best for its customers. Is it moral to let your users download apps containing viruses and have their personal information stolen? Or is it more moral to offer them at least a degree of security by checking code before it's approved. As for the OS, as discussed you can perfectly easy install it on any PC but it again is perfectly logical for Apple not to support 'any pc' that they didn't create, if that's what they believe they can do. Again, there is no moral obligation for them to support their own software on other products, you just have a delusion there. As for number of free apps vs paid apps, that's down to the developers, not the marketplace. Higher quality apps for which people are prepared to pay more for are far better than a bunch of useless free apps, and once again this has nothing to do with any moral issues on the part of Apple. Doctoring photos, as discussed, you will need to provide evidence that this was found to be true in court. While, if true, it would be a moral faux pas, the far worse 'amoral' action was Samsung in that case who were found guilty of copying Apple and ordered to make changes.

So all in all, you're defending a completely irrelevant point (in the context of monopolies), and your irrelevant point is wrong anyway. Exactly like the original poster. So now, I conclude with 'where are your brains?'

;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
rad07 Streaming Video & TVs 2
D Streaming Video & TVs 3
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 4
H Streaming Video & TVs 5
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
M Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
C Streaming Video & TVs 1
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 36
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 86
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 24

ASK THE COMMUNITY