|
|
|
|
|
|
by buro9
5697 days ago
|
|
|
I believe that the price advantage comes not insignificantly from the market side of reselling software, apps, music and video and taking a not insignificant slice of the sale of those items. If you remove the market from the equation Apple's bottom line isn't as impressive, in fact the rise of Apple in recent years is coupled to the rise of their market place. So strong is their domination over music distribution that I'm starting to think that when an investigation starts against Apple that the target should be to split Apple into two companies; one for hardware (and OS) and one for the markets. Only then will Apple operate on a level playing field with regards to other hardware manufacturers, as it is the advantage of the market that enables them to subsidise the price of hardware, and as they have grown dominant in hardware (especially in music players) they should be treated as a monopoly of that market and competition encouraged (by just levelling that playing field slightly). I realise that these views aren't in line with the opinion of the vast majority of people I speak to, especially online and in circles who use Apple gear. But this is long term speculation stuff, the "What-if"... years ago I speculated how dominant itunes could be and it mostly has come to pass and is still increasing (25% of all US music, 69% of digital music as of mid-2009). |
|
|
Even if Apple has achieved a near-monopoly over digital music or sales or portable music, it's not at all clear that they have had the opportunity to abuse that monopoly. There have been cases (Psystar, etc.) that have tried to get the bundling of Mac OS X and Apple computers ruled as illegal tying, and they have failed. For the foreseeable future, there will not be grounds for a federal antitrust case against Apple.
You should try to conceive of Apple as the poster child for a successful business strategy: vertical integration. A large part of the success of Apple's expansion beyond computers is due to the fact that they can and have ensured that the products work well together, and that most of the products they have introduced have been natural complements of their existing products.
You also seem to be somewhat ignorant of the timeline of Apple's rise over the past decade. The iPod was on the market and gaining traction for a year and a half before the iTunes Music Store opened. At the time the iTunes Store opened, DRM was mandated by pretty much all the content owners. If this contributed to Apple getting a monopoly on digital music sales, the blame should fall on the music studios for not insisting that the online stores they deal with use a single interoperable DRM system, and not on Apple, who had no incentive to promoting interoperability with other music stores and players.
The profits of the iPod+iTunes Store combo provided most of the funding for the Intel switch and the development of the iPhone. Like the iPod, the iPhone was on the market and gaining traction for about a year and a half before the App Store opened. It's hard to argue that Apple's computers have been helped much by the iPod and iPhone other than by generally strengthening the Apple brand.
Each step of the way to their current position, Apple has done it by introducing products that can be at least moderately successful on their own, without the hardware/software tying you are complaining about. None of those individual steps has been anywhere as close to monopoly abuse as, say, Microsoft's entry in to the video game console market, which faced no significant legal challenges. Nor has Apple clearly erected any artificial barriers to entry for competitors. Their agreements with content producers are not exclusive, and now that DRM is not applied to music sales, there's no significant barrier to using music purchased through iTunes on other music players. To the extent that Apple has created any barriers to competition, it has only been by raising the standards for usability and quality.