eMusic calls bundled music anticompetitive

If this goes forward, I think anybody who cares about independent music will flock to emusic.

While I get where this guy is coming from, eMusic can fuck right off. They have a big record for offering people a free trial, and then charging for it anyway (like they did with me, signed up for a free 14 day trial and cancelled after 1 day without downloading any songs, and they charged me for the hell of it). They also have a terrible selection of music, if they care so much about competing with iTunes, maybe they should change that?

Andrew:

Apple is not in a monopoly through the manipulation of the market. Microsoft and Intel both manipulated the market by refusing to sell to resellers who carried a competitive product, thus restricting the ability of competitors to be able to compete.

Apple has a monopoly on the market because they have built a better mousetrap, not because they would not allow other manufacturers to sell competing mouse traps.

Apple has not told BestBuy, Wal-Mart, or any other retailer that they would lose their discounts if they sold competing products. (making that reseller unable to compete)

Apple has not restricted the iPod's to only play music purchased from iTunes.

In the same vein, Apple has not engineered any exclusive distribution rights with major labels that prevents the Label from selling on Amazon MP3, PlaysForSure, Zune Store, eMusic and others.

So consumers have not been manipulated into a situation where the only viable choice for a portible music player and the music for it must come from Apple.

The simple fact is that Apple is not an illegal, anti-competitive monopoly. They simply have delivered a a combination of devices and services that is so compelling that the consumers massively prefer Apple by choice, and not due to lack of other options.

Some people are whining about iTunes not being open to other players, but it us a well established fact the the same music at the same prices is available from multiple vendors. Again Apple dominates by sheer customer preference, and not market manipulation!

I love how everyone goes nuts when a RUMOR goes around. Sure Pakman has a vested interest in what happens, but seriously...he doesn't even know if this is the plan that Apple is thinking about executing. And "minor" details could easily change whether or not they're being anti-competitive.

The thing that blows my mind is this: how is it that being "extremely competitive" has somehow been made out to be "anti-competitive?" Are we supposed to assume that, when a market leader gets as huge as Apple/iTunes has, that they're just supposed to stop bringing better options to their customers? This is ridiculous. Pakman: keep up or take notes.

I'm not saying the subscription model is Apple's original idea...of course others have tried it already. Zune is a perfect example, albeit not a model I'd want to follow. I'd say, if Apple implements a subscription model (because let's face it...this is kinda still just a rumor), they're highly likely to do it right.

Just really bugs me that these corporate whiny bastids are just belly-aching about the shake-up of their status quo. They want to rest on their laurels and hope their business model continues to be profitable. Sorry to tell ya, kids, but you're being beaten at the game. Get better.

It's just clear that eMusic is afraid of a market in which it must compete directly with Apple...

There are still other MP3 players and other subscription services - this is in no way monopolistic.

Now if we add a thimble and free parking, then maybe - but until then, no way!

Being "monopolistic" generally has to do with a company having significant market power (which Apple actually does), and then using that power to stifle competition, thus ensuring a monopoly on that particular market.

If Apple was abusing its market power, it would be "asking" Wal-Mart and Best Buy to only stock iPods else they would pull their contracts or raise wholesale prices. Or they might, in this case, ensure in their "Total Music" contract that the labels won't offer similar unlimited download packages to other hardware makers.

As far as I can tell with my limited economics experience, nothing Apple is doing could be construed as an abuse of its market power.

He needs to have more faith in his company's offering, and up the ante before this comes to fruition.

I'm an eMusic customer. I'm very happy right now, but if a better all-you-can-eat package came along, all it would take to keep me is signing up more major label artists and increasing the value of the package.

How would it be monopolistic by Apple, or make the record labels "dangerously dependent"?

Can you not buy DAP's from:

Archos
Cowan
Creative
iRiver
Meizu
Microsoft
MobiBLU
Insignia
Philips
SanDisk
Samsung
Sony
No Name Chinese imports, plus many others

None of the devices from these manufacturers utilize Apple's iTunes, neither do all the mobile phones, besides the iPhone, that can play music.

Just more sour grapes from those with an inferior business plan and/or abilities.

Why is there the need to bastardise the spelling with rounded brackets?

He has an unfortunate name. Do you think people go Wakka Wakka Wakka whenever they see him?