To continue with the saga about Apple's pricing structure and the court case (see here, here and here) then I recommend this terrific article (pro-apple) that is in today's WSJ by Gordon Crovitz called A Judge Convicts Apple of Competition.
It's a great article (with a terrific title) but the best line in the article could be this one:
The ruling against Apple means that any company trying to provide a new service that requires negotiating with multiple parties to get access to content (like books, music or video) is at risk of antitrust prosecution. That includes Apple, which is planning to launch new offerings such as iTunes Radio. Other innovative consumer products that required the kinds of multiparty negotiations Apple had with book publishers include Netflix, Hulu and Pandora.
It's a worthwhile read whether you agree with the ruling or you don't, and I don't.
I am a convert. Originally I was anti-apple (see here) but having done just a bit of research and looked into the little bit I have, I think Apple has sure gotten a raw deal. They treated their book publishing business no different than any other app they had. They were busting up a monopoly not contributing to one, and they were forcing no one to do business with them. Where's the illegality?
Do I like the model? Not particularly, but then there are dozen of other sites where I can put my work. I don't understand the other side of the argument anymore, and have yet to find anyone to convince me that I'm wrong on this count. One more passage from today's article that speaks to me?
Company 2 entered a market in which Company 1 had a 90% market share—then Company 2 was found guilty of antitrust violations. Only in America. To the infamous antitrust prosecutions of technology companies such as IBM and Microsoft, add the Justice Department's July 10 "win" against Apple relating to sales of e-books.
No comments:
Post a Comment