[defbear]

Other companies are not competition. Just Tech Depots? I get the language barrier but tell me, you joined the Apple Revolution and you sell Apple products in Japan correct?

 

[shigzeo]

  Other companies are not competition. Just Tech Depots? I get the language barrier but tell me, you joined the Apple Revolution and you sell Apple products in Japan correct?

I must have been trying to type two things at once. My comment made no sense. If you sell your product or technology to someone else, you have taken yourself off the market. Apple didn't shut them down. Apple bought them out. Whether or not they dissolved their tech, or incorporated it into Apple's portfolio is anyone's guess. The point is that the company or its assets were for sale. Apple didn't stifle competition, they purchased a company whose end game was to be bought. If that company were interested in competing in the market, they wouldn't have put themselves on the market, or would have rebuffed Apple's approaches. I'm sure you see the difference. 

As to your last sentence, I won't even dignify it with an answer.

 

[Onitsuka]

If Apple plan is to get rid of "HiRes" and stupid stuffs like $500 cables, I would wholeheartedly support them.

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

If Apple plan is to get rid of "HiRes" and stupid stuffs like $500 cables, I would wholeheartedly support them.

CD quality is not that big of an ask. I cancelled apple music this summer because I was sick of lossy streaming. An extra $10 a month is worth listening to lossless music.

 

[west0ne]

 
I must have been trying to type two things at once. My comment made no sense. If you sell your product or technology to someone else, you have taken yourself off the market. Apple didn't shut them down. Apple bought them out. Whether or not they dissolved their tech, or incorporated it into Apple's portfolio is anyone's guess. The point is that the company or its assets were for sale. Apple didn't stifle competition, they purchased a company whose end game was to be bought. If that company were interested in competing in the market, they wouldn't have put themselves on the market, or would have rebuffed Apple's approaches. I'm sure you see the difference. 

As to your last sentence, I won't even dignify it with an answer.

I know it's slightly different but didn't Apple block or at least try to block the Spotify app update back in June 2016 for breach of app store rules in that under app store rules all subscriptions have to be done through Apple with Apple taking their cut. Apple felt that Spotify were in breach by directing users to subscribe outside the app store.
 
If that isn't anti-competitive I don't know what is.

 

[Onitsuka]

CD quality is not that big of an ask. I cancelled apple music this summer because I was sick of lossy streaming. An extra $10 a month is worth listening to lossless music.

It's pure subjective, each to his own. For me Spotify Extreme Quality is indistinguishable with FLAC and HiRes both on my IEMs and my stereo system.

 

[BlinkST]

  I know it's slightly different but didn't Apple block or at least try to block the Spotify app update back in June 2016 for breach of app store rules in that under app store rules all subscriptions have to be done through Apple with Apple taking their cut. Apple felt that Spotify were in breach by directing users to subscribe outside the app store.
 
If that isn't anti-competitive I don't know what is.

 
Any service that allows users to subscribe through their app, has to give Apple a 30% cut of their profits. That rule was in place long before Apple had a streaming service of their own. Gaining access to Apple's customer base isn't free.

 

[shigzeo]

  I know it's slightly different but didn't Apple block or at least try to block the Spotify app update back in June 2016 for breach of app store rules in that under app store rules all subscriptions have to be done through Apple with Apple taking their cut. Apple felt that Spotify were in breach by directing users to subscribe outside the app store.
 
If that isn't anti-competitive I don't know what is.

If you consider Apple's exclusive and proprietary App Store a free market, then yes. But it is their market venue, wholly owned by them and developed for their customers. They've had rules like that in place since day one in 2008. If you consider the Spotify example anti-competitive, you have to consider the entire App Store anti-competitive. The thing is: the store is designed to work on Apple devices and by their rules. They're not predating on external markets or customer bases. Perhaps it's not the best example, but if you were a car company whose car became very popular, and other companies wanted to capitalise off your success AND sell in your wholly-owned dealerships, they would have to abide by your rules. Now, if Apple petitioned the government to push Spotify out of the external market in order to push Apple Music, I'd agree: that is anti-competitive. In this case, I can't see how this could be construed as anti-competitive. Again, if you think the App Store itself is anti-competitive, then we have no base on which to discuss.

 

[shigzeo]

  CD quality is not that big of an ask. I cancelled apple music this summer because I was sick of lossy streaming. An extra $10 a month is worth listening to lossless music.

I wonder if the holdup is carrier support. Unlimited plans are hassles, if not 'unlimited' in name only. Three plays of a lossless album would completely saturate my monthly Softbank allowance. Apple tend to play long games. I can only imagine that if the technology/service base that would afford hassle-less lossless streaming to end-users was available, Apple would debut a lossless streaming service. As it is, I think the support structure for such data requirements isn't available.

 

[west0ne]

   
Any service that allows users to subscribe through their app, has to give Apple a 30% cut of their profits. That rule was in place long before Apple had a streaming service of their own. Gaining access to Apple's customer base isn't free.

 

 
If you consider Apple's exclusive and proprietary App Store a free market, then yes. But it is their market venue, wholly owned by them and developed for their customers. They've had rules like that in place since day one in 2008. If you consider the Spotify example anti-competitive, you have to consider the entire App Store anti-competitive. The thing is: the store is designed to work on Apple devices and by their rules. They're not predating on external markets or customer bases. Perhaps it's not the best example, but if you were a car company whose car became very popular, and other companies wanted to capitalise off your success AND sell in your wholly-owned dealerships, they would have to abide by your rules. Now, if Apple petitioned the government to push Spotify out of the external market in order to push Apple Music, I'd agree: that is anti-competitive. In this case, I can't see how this could be construed as anti-competitive. Again, if you think the App Store itself is anti-competitive, then we have no base on which to discuss.

I'm not ashamed to admit that my comments were probably naive, I was only thinking of myself as a consumer. I just feel that Apple forcing the use of their own subscription service for which they take a cut, in a system that is completely locked down preventing the consumer from using other sources and in taking into account that they provide a very similar music subscription service of their own at the same list price but without taking the 30% hit somehow doesn't feel like it is good for the consumer. I know they have their rules and that those rules have been in place for a long time but times move on, markets change and different players come and go in the market; providing a directly competing service and then giving yourself the financial competitive edge doesn't feel like it does the consumer good. I think my view would be different if Apple didn't actually provide their own competing music subscription service.
 
I accept that there is a clear definition in law (regional variances apply) of anti-competitive behaviour but as a consumer I can see that this behaviour can stifle real-world competition for end users.
 
To be honest the locked down, closed system was one of the reasons why I moved away from the iPhone, I liked the hardware but not the control, it somehow never felt like 'my' phone.

 

[shigzeo]

   
I'm not ashamed to admit that my comments were probably naive, I was only thinking of myself as a consumer. I just feel that Apple forcing the use of their own subscription service for which they take a cut, in a system that is completely locked down preventing the consumer from using other sources and in taking into account that they provide a very similar music subscription service of their own at the same list price but without taking the 30% hit somehow doesn't feel like it is good for the consumer. I know they have their rules and that those rules have been in place for a long time but times move on, markets change and different players come and go in the market; providing a directly competing service and then giving yourself the financial competitive edge doesn't feel like it does the consumer good. I think my view would be different if Apple didn't actually provide their own competing music subscription service.
 
I accept that there is a clear definition in law (regional variances apply) of anti-competitive behaviour but as a consumer I can see that this behaviour can stifle real-world competition for end users.
 
To be honest the locked down, closed system was one of the reasons why I moved away from the iPhone, I liked the hardware but not the control, it somehow never felt like 'my' phone.

You have kind of proved my point: you disagreed with the way a company (Apple) did things. You chose to move away from it and embrace another system, that I can only suppose, is freer in your mind than the one you left. You proved that there isn't anything anti-competitive going on, precisely because your end decision was to move to a competitor. The competitor can use their market place however they want. They can choose to be locked down, or they can choose to be 'open'. 

Spotify have a system. Apple have theirs. It's quite simple. Spotify are free to make use of Apple's system by Apple's rules. They are free to make use of another system as long as they play by the rules of that system. The conceit about universality and open is that, while it promotes itself as being open and truly free market, it necessarily cuts to leaders and sheds smaller players. Which is fine, except that it trumpets itself as free and open and more competitive. In a sense, it virtue signals about the evils of honing to points, and then hones to a point. 

Apple's system may appear to be anti-competitive, but the oppose is true. It is fiercely competitive and it does what it can to maintain a competitive advantage on ITS terms under strict guidelines. It plays the game its own way and doesn't pander to anyone else's view. I happen to dislike a number of things about this system, but I can't in good conscience call it anti-competitive because it promotes competition by itself competing, and demanding deals rather than giving things away for free. When you open doors freely, you stifle competition for the simple reason that the thing of greatest value: the structure in which everything worth taking is housed, becomes meaningless. It hones to reflexive introspection where the voice behind the 'free' people, ideas, products, etc., shouts out in one voice and demands that those who don't share the same system change. It demonises.

Juxtapose that with a system that gives nothing and takes nothing for free. Every deal requires a contract, whereby both parties agree to specific terms, hopefully mutually beneficial. It is up to both parties to make decisions that will benefit themselves. They are beholden to no one but themselves. In such a system, there is no demon but lethargy, aimlessness, and fat. Apple's app store is ugly, hard to manoeuvre, but it is not anti-competitive. Its very existence stands against lazy business practices and agents that want something for nothing.
 
[edit: I've edited nothing, but before I am rightfully outed for grammar and spelling errors, I want to lay a mea culpa. I know. I'm my own worst editor, and probably one of the worst editors this board has.]

 

[Vidal]

Apple Music is available on Android now, do Apple pay a subscription fee to Google if someone signs up to the service in the Android app?

 

[SparkOnShore]

CD quality is not that big of an ask. I cancelled apple music this summer because I was sick of lossy streaming. An extra $10 a month is worth listening to lossless music.

What are you sick about?? AAC audio quality is not discernible from CD quality in blind tests. Are we out of our minds? Apple Music files quality is awesome! All you have is placebo in your mind that you need to listen to CD lossless) Please do yourself a favour and participate in correct organized and volume matched blind tests. You will see for yourself that THERE ARE NO DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCES ANYMORE!!!!

 

[shigzeo]

  Apple Music is available on Android now, do Apple pay a subscription fee to Google if someone signs up to the service in the Android app?

I have no idea. And whether they do or not is up to Google and Apple. They make agreements based on terms to which both may find mutually beneficial.

 

[west0ne]

  Apple Music is available on Android now, do Apple pay a subscription fee to Google if someone signs up to the service in the Android app?

Not sure if things have changed but it used to be the case with the Play Store that you could choose to use their billing services for which you paid a fee or you could choose to use your own billing services and not pay the fee.
 
With Android you can side load apps without them even touching the Play Store so if you don't want to pay the fees you can do your own thing.