A German music site has lodged a competition complaint against Apple ahead of its iCloud launch later today. Simfy accused Apple of deliberately delaying approval of the company's iPad application in order to favour its own products. Simfy lodged its complaint with the German Federal Cartel Office and will also complain to …
Apple wont but I will
Whilst I don't agree at all that apple can block apps purely on the grounds that they want to favor their own products, it's there store, for their products, to be used by its devices. It's not as if people with non apple devices can be affected, by this app not being in the store, so the only monopoly that Apple has is a monopoly on Apple products...surely that's pretty fair?
@Micky, Let me rephrase that for you
Whilst I don't agree at all that the EU can block devices purely on the grounds that they want to enforce laws on competitive behavior, it's their jurisdiction, for their people. It's not as if people outside the EU can be affected, by this device not being available, so the only jurisdiction that the EU has is within their borders ...surely that's pretty fair?
Heard it before
Name the culprit: "It's our operating system, we can tell people what browser and media player we want them to use!"
Now take the same idea to printer manufacturers and print cartridges, or cars and fuel. and on, and on, and on
The EU is a government organisation that stands for nearly 30 countries
They are not a company producing products with the single aim of making money....The two cannot be compared in this way.
It is anti competitive to abuse one's leading position in one market (phones) to further oone's positioon in another market (streaming music services). Apple cannot block a competitors app on their own platform to further their own app that does the same thing.
See MS and Internet Explorer in the EU.
re: Name the culprit: "It's our operating system, we can tell people what browser and media player we want them to use!"
But they didn't prevent anyone releasing alternative browsers and media players. Big difference.
idiots buy from Apple
Perhaps those idiots that bought from Apple now understand the policy.
Blocking non-apple stores is all part of the plan. So too with charging a 30% cut for subscriptions. And now it is clear that Apple blocks or delays competing services.
Buying Apple means you are a fool.
Apple are a law unto themselves, but by all rights, when I've paid $4-600 dollars for my iPhone would I pay $25 a year to use iTunes "in the cloud", when it's the only option available. There are no iTunes alternatives that do EXACTLY what iTunes do, so Apple have us screwed either way?!!
Simples! Don't pay the $4-600 in the first place, nobody's forcing you too.
I haven't and I find that this gives me total immunity from any iScrewage. You had the answer at the beginning there; "Apple are a law unto themselves". That's themselves, not you.
More fool you
As i've stated Apple only monopolises their own products.
You used your choice to buy into a well know locked down process (next time read the T&Cs first)...You could have chosen not to buy into the Apple franchise but you didn't and now you complain. You also expect a company to develop an identical system to Apples and then launch it for a lower price...good luck on your trip to India, I'll still be sat back here in the real world.
takuhli: you won't pay an unknown amount for an unknown product? Me neither!
Seriously, it's an unannounced product, at an unannounced price. You don't know what it does, if it's good, or what it costs (beyond vague rumours). How can you possibly know if you want it? It might be free and the best thing ever, it might be totally optional, it might be compulsory, expensive and useless (yeah right).
You are the person...
that Charlie Brooker is describing in his article titled "If the internet gave free back rubs, people would complain when it stopped because its thumbs were sore" (http://goo.gl/SzDZM). I'm not normally a fan of Brooker, he's one of the whiney indie kids from your schooldays; fashionably cynical n'all, but he's nailed on on with this.
It's a complex issue
On the one hand Apple has demonstrated that tight editorial control over iPhone apps provides benefits to consumers, and given the cost of providing those services they are entitled to require people monetizing their marketplace to pay them for the privilege.
On the other, as Apple's position in mobile computing becomes more dominant they will have to start acting like a responsible monopolist, which will be a huge cultural shift for them and probably won't happen without litigation.
We're not there yet though, iphone is far from a monopoly in the phone market and it's too soon to tell how much of the tablet market they'll take. Anything less than 60% and it will be hard to paint Apple as a monopolist, instead consumers will have two clear choices - a controlled Apple world of tightly integrated devices and apps, and a looser android world.
Android to the rescue
"Anything less than 60% and it will be hard to paint Apple as a monopolist"
So Android comes to the rescue and Apple will be able to play a bit longer in their tightly walled garden. Sounds like a good solution to me, let them innovate in their fashion and on the account of their fanbois, and let the rest of us enjoy the wild-type smartphones without the apple tax.
Lose v Loose
This one is pretty funny.
Casual empricism shows that an enormous number of people cannot spell and do not know the difference between lose (as in lost) and loose (sounds like moose and not too tight)
So is it a "looser" Android market or a "loser" Android market?
I think it's the latter
How are they going to establish that their app is *unfairly* delayed?
They might also have to establish that Apple has to accept third-party apps, which does not seem a given to me. After all, if Apple had said from the beginning they did not accept third-party apps at all, the iPad would probably not be as successful, but I doubt anybody could claim it was anticompetitive behavior.
(if any) will be the emails
"have you any news on approving our App?"
"can you tell us why you haven't given a decision on our app?
"you didn't respond to my last email...."
If Simfy's complaint were true...
...I'd expect Spotify to have been given the same treatment. They haven't, ergo it's not true.
If Spotify had an iPad app...
,,,which they don't, then your argument might carry some weight.
In any case, Spotify were made to wait more than 3 months for their iPhone app to be approved a couple of years ago.
Ok, so now it's been revealed, is it the same thing?
Simfy are plonkers for making statements before knowing all the facts - surely if they do have a case, it would be stronger if they'd waited until after the announcement. And they'd save having egg on their face if it wasn't the same thing.
I might be wrong but it doesn't look the same to me. Simfy is a music subscription service, iCloud is just iTunes online...no?
iCloud is not streaming music
...if anything it is a replacement to Dropbox. It is just a remote storage with automatic syncing, integrated with all content-producing applications of iOS 5. Just because it also supports iTunes it should not be considered a rival to Simfy or Spotify because it is not the iCloud that does the streaming.
If you ask me, Simfy took advantage of the iCloud announcement hype for free publicity!