Serious flash back to Intel.Apple representatives urged the labels not to participate, and Apple is said to have punished those that did by withdrawing marketing support for those songs on iTunes.
In other words, should a computer manufacturer fail to purchase virtually all its x86 CPU requirements from Intel, it would forgo the possibility of obtaining a significant rebate on any of its very high volumes of Intel purchases."
You're missing everything. Exclusivity contracts are commonplace, wouldn't you want your own company to have exclusive access to a song? It's not like the contract runs forever & the music cannot be broadcast anyplace else. It's not monopoly, it's marketing.I must be reading this wrong. What I read is that Apple is being investigated for antitrust violations partly due to them using their dominant position in the online music market to stop Amazon from having an exclusivity contract with certain labels. Now, I will not say that I am the most intelligent person around, but it would seem to me that Apple just used its position to make the music available from multiple sources, which is the opposite of monopolistic practices.
Also, they are said to have 'punished' those that would sign such an agreement, which makes total sense to me. Why should I advertise for something I can not make money on?
Am I missing something?