Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New York and Connecticut Officials Investigate Apple Music for Possible Antitrust Violations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Holy crap at the fanboys taking issue with this as if Apple doesn't have a history of shady behavior. Stop crying, super fans, if Apple is innocent, they'll be fine.
I agree with UMG's statement and I'm not sure what the issue is here. Why would the music labels want to limit their outlets? They're in the business of gaining as many revenue streams as they can, whether that's through paid-for or ad-generated outlets. Also not sure how they can suggest it's collusion when Apple Music is only through subscription. Others offer both sub and/or freemium, and Apple's sub is right in line with other competing services.
Frankly, I'd rather pay a sub and know my music interests are private than have ads thrown in my face or my info datamined and sold off. But free is also hard to beat. Humans love free stuff, and so I don't see Apple Music being a threat to these existing services.
Frankly, I'd rather pay a sub and know my music interests are private than have ads thrown in my face or my info datamined and sold off. But free is also hard to beat. Humans love free stuff, and so I don't see Apple Music being a threat to these existing services.
No question Apple has been caught doing shady things in the past, I'm just suspicious at how quickly someone concluded there was enough "possible wrong doing" to launch an investigation the day after the announcement. It's like a CEO from the competition was already sitting in some government office during the keynote whispering into their ear, "let's investigate". How does anyone in the government know so much about how this new music service works to suspect something shady may have taken place?
As I said, suspicious! Is Samsung behind this somehow?
Apple should be selling and marketing and being successful based upon the merits of their product, not making back room deals to crush competition.
I use Google Play Music. Apple should be trying to earn my business with releasing compelling products, not forcing me into their business model because there are no other options.
I use Google Play Music. Apple should be trying to earn my business with releasing compelling products, not forcing me into their business model because there are no other options.
There's still going to be ad-supported radio. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about on this thread. If Apple violated the laws, it will come out. I'm sure they don't think they have. Not very many companies - especially large U.S. corporations - intentionally break the law.
So there's a two-fer. 1.) There's still gonna be free music streaming services of several varieties. 2.) If Apple broke the law, they'll end up paying. Pretty simple.
So there's a two-fer. 1.) There's still gonna be free music streaming services of several varieties. 2.) If Apple broke the law, they'll end up paying. Pretty simple.
The Beats 1 Radio and other radio stations are available in the Music app, but those aren't part of the Apple Music on-demand streaming service. You can listen to the radio for free, yes, but you cannot search for specific songs to play, create playlists, or do any of the other things you can do with the Apple Music subscription. The on-demand streaming service itself has no freemium tier.
Got to love how companies can effectively bribe government officials, so long as they call it "lobbying", but if a couple companies were to discuss business and come to a conclusion like "we shouldn't allow amazon to dictate the prices for the entire e-book industry" or "a free, ad-supported tier is not profitable enough" that's illegal... Obviously there should be some regulation but come on.
Do they not care when Pandora and others do it, or do we just not hear about it?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
How does killing off the free streaming music options benefit us consumers? Why would we want to convert something for free to something that is only available as a paid option? That's what this is about... not Governments conspiring against Apple... nor relatively small players like Spotify or Pandora bribing Governments to attack Apple (if Governments were so easily bought, Apple could out-bribe Spotify & Pandora and all similar entities combined).
This is probably just the Ebook misbehavior in another form... where Apple may have stepped over the legal line AGAIN in an effort to prop up it's latest new business interests by trying to make another form of media more expensive for us consumers. Being able to wipe out the ad-supported free streaming music tiers offered by competitors like Spotify would be very good for Apple's interests in selling a paid streaming music service. Unless you think we consumers win by killing free music streaming options, you might want to reserve your dismay/disgust at Governments (and it's not just 2 state governments) trying to do something for consumers instead of massively profitable businesses for a change.
Post #28 is spot on. If Apple has done nothing wrong, this will go nowhere. But, based on multiple governments investigating and the Ebook debacle, it's probably going to end up going somewhere. If so, hopefully Apple will get the message this time that it should win in the marketplace on the merits of its creations rather than resorting to tactics that work against the interests of some of its own consumers by trying to change it's competitor's business models so that things get more expensive for us consumers. Only Apple wins by flexing it's great power to make competitor offerings more expensive for us. We do not win.
This is probably just the Ebook misbehavior in another form... where Apple may have stepped over the legal line AGAIN in an effort to prop up it's latest new business interests by trying to make another form of media more expensive for us consumers. Being able to wipe out the ad-supported free streaming music tiers offered by competitors like Spotify would be very good for Apple's interests in selling a paid streaming music service. Unless you think we consumers win by killing free music streaming options, you might want to reserve your dismay/disgust at Governments (and it's not just 2 state governments) trying to do something for consumers instead of massively profitable businesses for a change.
Post #28 is spot on. If Apple has done nothing wrong, this will go nowhere. But, based on multiple governments investigating and the Ebook debacle, it's probably going to end up going somewhere. If so, hopefully Apple will get the message this time that it should win in the marketplace on the merits of its creations rather than resorting to tactics that work against the interests of some of its own consumers by trying to change it's competitor's business models so that things get more expensive for us consumers. Only Apple wins by flexing it's great power to make competitor offerings more expensive for us. We do not win.
Last edited:
I'm not referring to specific events, just their existences as music streaming services. Were they also investigated when they tried to open business?
So basically, Radio will still exist. It's hard to see any material difference such as search and no search or skipping ads or not skipping ads as something that can't be charged for. If Apple still has iTunes Radio, then I think it will be hard for any state government to prove that Apple is trying to do away with free music streaming. It's got a pretty good version of it right now. Most likely that version will continue to be, by far and away, the most popular way to get streaming music from Apple. Time will tell.
I know I'd be hard pressed to justify $14.99/mo. when I currently don't even do cable TV, and instead opt for Amazon Prime alone. I do have an Audible subscription, but I listen to audio books every morning and evening for a 1+ hr. commute. Without that kind of intense love of or interest in a service, not many will pay for it. I think 100 million is a high number with a good enough service like Radio available. Seriously, we listen to real radio and can't search for songs. Pretty sure Apple has that one figured out.
I'm also pretty sure that the existence of Radio will prove their commitment to free content - unlike their book deals where they didn't specifically have a free service and had maneuvered to raise prices across the industry. Apparently CT and NY think Apple tried to manipulate prices again. All the above to say, I'm pretty sure the lack of a "freemium" service is a point mooted by the existence of Radio while the charge of price manipulation is an entirely different topic. Hopefully Apple has learned its lesson there.
Last edited:
For what reason?
You like ITunes Match? Stay on it. Your arm isnt being twisted to switch.
What is not clear is that if you don't have iTunes Match, what happens with iCloud storage and the music uploaded.
My guess is that after the iBook mess, Apple has been extra careful with these deals. They will investigate, make some political grandstanding, and then move on when they discover nothing.
Apple is the biggest kid on the block and this comes with the territory. So let's all relax and let this play out, but don't get any popcorn, cause I suspect this will be a bad B movie at best. Snore....
Apple is the biggest kid on the block and this comes with the territory. So let's all relax and let this play out, but don't get any popcorn, cause I suspect this will be a bad B movie at best. Snore....