antitrust Stories July 11
antitrust Stories October 13, 2015
The U.S. Justice Department has said that is now satisfied with Apple’s measures to guard against any repetition of the type of anti-competitive behaviour ruled illegal in the long-running ebooks trial. Bloomberg reports that the department has recommended that the court-appointed monitor is no longer necessary.
In a letter to the Manhattan federal judge who found in 2013 that Apple illegally conspired with publishers to set e-book prices, the U.S. said Apple has “now implemented meaningful antitrust policies, procedures, and training programs that were obviously lacking at the time Apple participated in and facilitated the horizontal price-fixing conspiracy found by this court.”
The letter did, however, note that Apple “never embraced a cooperative working relationship with the monitor” … expand full story
antitrust Stories May 7, 2015
Spotify, which is widely believed to be behind the antitrust allegations that led to both EC and DOJ investigations into Apple, has now added a fresh complaint. The Verge reports Spotify is complaining that the 30% cut Apple takes from in-app Premium subscriptions in the iOS app amounts to an “Apple tax.”
Apple charges a 30 percent fee toward any sales through its App Store, and that includes subscription services. That means if Spotify wants to sell its premium subscription service — which usually costs $9.99 a month — through the App Store, it has to raise the price 30 percent higher to $12.99 to pull in the same revenue, while Apple can still offer Beats at a lower price. Spotify and many others in the music industry believe Apple’s App Store tax gives them an unfair advantage over the competition.
One unnamed music industry source said that Apple taking 30% was “**cking bullsh**” … expand full story
antitrust Stories May 4, 2015
Allegations that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices in the run-up to the launch of its rebranded Beats streaming music service are now being investigated by the Department of Justice, according to “multiple sources” cited by The Verge.
The claim is that Apple has been attempting to use its influence to persuade music labels to pull out of deals with free, ad-supported services like Spotify and YouTube in order to reduce competition and increase demand for its own paid service. The European Commission launched an investigation into these same allegations last month …
antitrust Stories April 2, 2015
Apple’s planned rebranding and relaunch of the Beats streaming music service has not had the easiest of rides. The launch, initially planned for earlier this year, was delayed by the departure of key execs and difficulties integrating Beats and Apple technologies. A planned $5/month price-point had to be abandoned in favor of an attempt at $7.99/month when music labels wouldn’t play ball, and that too now looks increasingly unlikely even though Google Play offered initial All Access Signups for a $7.99 locked in. And any plans to offer artist exclusives as an inducement now face competition from newly-relaunched Tidal.
Just when it seemed things couldn’t get any tougher, London’s Financial Times reports that the European Commission is considering launching an antitrust investigation into the service, even before it launches. The Commission has contacted several music labels to ask what deals have been done with Apple, says the FT.
The commission, which also has contacted Apple’s music-streaming rivals, is said to be concerned that the company will use its size, relationships and influence to persuade labels to abandon free, ad-supported services such as Spotify, which depend on licenses with music companies for their catalogues.
The newspaper implies that the investigation may have been triggered by a formal complaint by an existing streaming music service … expand full story
antitrust Stories December 17, 2014
Judge denies media requests for public release of Steve Jobs deposition from iPod antitrust case
A judge decided today to deny media requests for a public release of Steve Jobs’ videotaped deposition in last week’s iPod antitrust case. Apple had been fighting back against these requests, saying that members of the press who wanted to air the video just wanted to see “a dead man.”
The ruling essentially states that since live testimony from witnesses was not recorded and then released to the media, the Jobs deposition should not be either. Because the video was not entered into evidence as an exhibit, it can’t be treated like evidence.
There was also a concern expressed in the ruling that in the future, witnesses might be hesitant to give videotaped depositions if they believed the video might be released to the press. Transcriptions of the portions of the video shown in court are included in the public record, and the judge found that to be sufficient.
You can real the full ruling below (via Apple Insider).