MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Worry much, Mr. Pakman?

Mar 20, 08 - 09:36 am Comment from: ron

Is it a 'Plan" yet?

Mar 20, 08 - 09:38 am Comment from: ron

Which came first, the game or Pakman?

I smell a smokescreen to distract the other music retailers from what's really coming.

Scared is good! But you must abuse the monopoly to get in trouble, not merely be a monopoly.

I will wait until an actual lawyer rather than someone with a vested commercial interest in an outcome weighs in....

Mar 20, 08 - 09:41 am Comment from: Ampar

"eMusic CEO: Apple would be breaking antitrust laws with reported ‘all-you-can-eat’ iTunes plan"


Translation: I just crapped in my pants and my resume is not up-to-date.

Mar 20, 08 - 09:43 am Comment from: Mr. Reeee

I think Mr. Pakman needs to change his Depends.

Why would this plan trigger an anti-trust investigation?

Unlike Microsoft's historically catalogued tactics, Apple with iTunes and the iPod have NOT gone out of their way, NOT made it their corporate policy to harm other companies or their products. Apple simply designs, produces, advertises and sells an extremely popular product.

NO ONE is forced to buy iPods.
If you buy an iPod you are not FORCED to use the iTunes Store. I don't, except for downloading a few free podcasts.

So, why would it be monopolistic for Apple to offer MORE choice to their customers?

Mar 20, 08 - 09:43 am Comment from: Jay-Z

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Idiot.

Mar 20, 08 - 09:50 am Comment from: Macdoc

He is so wrong about antitrust laws and comparing it to Microsoft's issues with Internet Explorer.

I don't know if this guy has a point or not, but I do know that eMusic sucks. I got one of those 25 free download cards, signed up, and couldn't find ANY songs I liked. So I cancelled it out. Then I noticed they had charged me 9.99 on each of my next two credit card statements for something I had apparently clicked on while at their website. So I called to tell them to credit it back to my card. Only when I called the customer service number I found on their website, I got an answering machine that was very obviously just somebody's residence. Multiple calls gave me the same guy's answering machine. I finally had to call my credit card company and let them straighten it out. No wonder iTunes is so dominant....

Mar 20, 08 - 09:57 am Comment from: Des Gusting

Yeah right, like you're a fscking saint, Mr Pay-musicians-a-whopping-12-cents-per-track-Pakman!

That would only be true if apple used a DRM encrusted file format for said music. If Apple was using an open AAC format like they do have now then anyone who could play AAC's wold be able to get in on that deal.

Mar 20, 08 - 10:06 am Comment from: Macromancer

Actually eMusic is one of the good services out there. Independent labels. No DRM.

Still I think he's full of crap.

Besides, who EATS their music. I mean, I don't listen to a bannana.

Mar 20, 08 - 10:07 am Comment from: Ampar

"I got an answering machine that was very obviously just somebody's residence. Multiple calls gave me the same guy's answering machine."

Perhaps David Pakman was upstairs eating dinner with his mom? His pr0n torrents were going to take awhile to download.

Mar 20, 08 - 10:18 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

"The company's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows 'killed the browser market, it killed Netscape. And (Microsoft) ran into all sorts of trouble in the U.S. and in Europe,"

And now, years later, IE is still on top, Microsoft is relatively unaffected by anti-trust lawsuits, still making a pile of money, and not much else has changed. So the lesson for the shrewd businessman is: Why not?!

What an idiot this guy is. His company is ok but he does not have a clue about this. This is so NOT like the Internet Explorer issue. That was a browser dongled to NOT let other people play. iTunes plays music from emusic just fine so he should concentrate on selling more and paying more to the musicians.

Mar 20, 08 - 10:35 am Comment from: HolyMackerel

I think we need to keep a moment's silence here. This is a monumental achievement, especially for those who have suffered the blows of malcontent for the past 20 years.

Apple has been threatened with anti-trust and monopolistic practices! Ahhhh, the air somehow smells sweeter.

Mr. Pakman,

Please watch out particularly for that damn Red Ghost. He's much smarter, faster and more nimble than those other Ghosts.

There's an analogy in there somewhere... hmmmm....

Mar 20, 08 - 10:44 am Comment from: BiZarRo BaLlmEr

good one C1-why not indeed.

Apple's been using anti-competitive tactics since the launch of the iTunes Music Store, and planning them since the launch of the iPod. Tying the iPod to a single online distribution channel is what put most of the others out of business. It's only the other companies (eMusic for example) that finally broke down the music companies and managed to distribute DRM-free tracks that broke Apple's complete shutout in that market. Of course, after that deal had been made, Apple tried to position themselves to look like it had been their idea all along, and the fact that they were doing the OPPOSITE of that for five years and crushing everyone else in the process didn't mean they were happy about it.

Of course, after years of anti-competitive behavior, Apple's still the big dog as a result. Just like MS benefitted from their baloney.

That said, I don't know if this alleged all-you-can-eat model would constitute anti-competitive behavior, unless they're forcing the arrangement on the music labels as a condition of participation in the iTunes Store.

Mar 20, 08 - 10:55 am Comment from: rahrens

No, PC, the fact that others made players that sucked and tied theirs to sucky music distribution channels, such as M$'s cheap crap and Playsforsure is what killed the others. The fact that their players were tied to DRM that often kept them from even ripping users' music also sucked.

The iPod allowed anybody to play anything that didn't use DRM or wmv crap plus allowed users to rip their own music into the iPod is what made it a success.

The iPod was a success long before the iTunes store came along.

That said, I don't see Apple giving anybody a part of their revenue - that's just not Apple's way. Now if they could figure out a way to move the money in the OTHER direction and still make those libraries of music available...

I was on eMusic when it was all you can it. It had better music even then than iTunes does now, largely. If you're a real music fan, eMusic used to be a very good place.

He's wrong about antitrust, as is nearly everyone who hasn't been to law school who opens his mouth about it. It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's not illegal to want to or try to be a monopoly. If you are a monopoly, it's not illegal to reap the benefits of your position. "Tying" or bundling is definitely not illegal if done for rational reasons.

What you're not allowed to do is abuse your position. Apple would not be allowed to use its dominance to, say, forbid the labels from cutting deals with anyone else. But they're allowed to get the best deal for themselves that they can.

Well,

IE and Win are both owned by M$,

Apple doesn't own music, so what's the problem?

Wait, so what about auto industry? They are selling cars that use gasoline and I wanted to fill it up with water.

Funny thing is that this doesn't directly effect emusic--the major labels that have been pushing for a subscription model don't allow emusic to sell their tracks--emusic's pricing is too low.

If the majors had sold their music as uprotected mp3s in the first place (and emusic predates iTMS) then Apple wouldn't have had to get Fairplay or open the store at all.

I suppose Pakman has two fears:

1) He's getting sicky of selling independent music for cents a track, thinks he is finally within sniffing distance of getting the majors signed, and this kills that for him (as well as his chance to unload emusic at a profit.)

-or-

2) People will be so drowning in gulp-as-you-want music from the majors through iTMS that customers won't bother with emusic. This seems like a pretty dumb fear--if people want the indie music he's selling, they'll buy it.

-or-

3) He's afraid his independent lables (or at least the larger of his independent labels) will then toss in with Apple for a sliver of iPod cash, leaving him with just smallest independents.

Mar 20, 08 - 12:05 pm Comment from: Roberto

ChrissyOne, just what I was thinking, thanks for saving me from typing it as you did it better than I would have.

Pakman = The Smell of Fear

Mar 20, 08 - 12:06 pm Comment from: Roberto

"Get outta my head, woman!" -- Frank Barone

Mar 20, 08 - 12:07 pm Comment from: Ampar

Well said, rahrens.

Mar 20, 08 - 12:21 pm Comment from: feral

more cowbell.

I love emusic. For $10 months a month I can try 40 songs and if I find something I like, I can then go buy the CD.

I place my Mac credentials second to no man or woman on these posts, but I think there is some justification in Packman's concern.
I don't know if there is any truth in this story, or if it is just something that has been floated; but if true it does feel a bit like bullying.
When I first read of this, for the first time ever I felt a bit queasy about an Apple initiative.

Pakman just bent over and took one up the wazzoo.

Steve, note that it isn't an Apple initiative--it is something the labels have been pushing for. And further note that the major labels have offered all the money-per-track sites DRM free tracks, something that has been offered only at a much more limited basis, at higher prices, to Apple. If Apple does make a deal like this it will be a capitulation to the labels. They are the ones to look to the monopoly violation not Apple.

I love eMusic, but their attitude is disappointing:

eMusic Can’t Sell Their Product: Whines About Apple’s Potential iTunes Plans.

All I can say about this statement is:
Pakman = idiot!

What kind of a name is that anyway. Is he related to Pacman?

Mar 20, 08 - 03:17 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

MS wasn't punished for bundling IE with the OS. They were punished for not allowing users to unbundle IE with the OS.

Also, isn't Nokia using its cellphone dominance, doing exactly the same thing? It's offering a subscription music model.

What is eMusic? This is the first I'm hearing about that.

An ipod that holds all the music ever recorded is in the works.

That sort of device will make pirating music incredibly easy.

What will the music industry do then?

Regarding the antitrust issues of this, I think that Apple could solve them by offering owners or older iPods and other portable music players the ability to pay a one-time subscription fee to the iTunes Store. Whatever the jump in iPod pricing is, that would be the rate for the one-time subscription.

But none of this will really impact me until ALL iTunes Store audio tracks are lossless and DRM-free. I understand the bandwidth issues involved in offering lossless audio tracks. But to me, the difference between lossless audio and compressed audio is VERY noticeable. So, I'll be importing my CDs to my computer and then transferring them to my iPod for the foreseeable future.

I think he's right... if the music is bundled (like IE with windows) rather than offered as an option.

But who wants a bundle rather than a choice? UMG that's who. It's their dream of surgically implanting themselves in the ipod revenue stream (and thus our wallets) that violates anti trust there.

Apple is in the business of selling music not forcing us to buy it.

And I think this statement from emusic is really nice fodder for apple (of course they have their own lawyers who I'm sure are many moves ahead) to tell the recording industry where they can shove their "comes with music" (actually an $80 ipod tax that comes with DRM) dream.