Competition Bureau closes Apple investigation after discovering no abuse of sway with carriers

White Apple iPhone 7 Plus smartphone - next could feature wireless charging

Comments

  • Shogun

    Not in the least surprised. This was a favourite conspiracy theory of Fandroids and others who seemed to think Apple was preventing rival business from competing when in fact iPhones just sold all that much better and its what people wanted which is why carriers may have favored the brand more.
    Mobility providers are in business to make money. Not to provide a platform for money losing entities that don’t cut it with consumers.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Well, Apple did fix ebook prices previously and you can’t just ignore that when you let them do business in your country.

    • Shogun

      Others were included in that ebook matter as well if memory serves. This was a baseless inquiry but what’s done is done. Should serve as a guide going forward

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Not sure what others involved have to do with anything but the point I was saying is you don’t just let someone with a criminal history into your home without being suspicious, even if they’re clean now.

  • gommer strike

    Maybe all these held a lot more weight with the early days of iPhone(past the time they were an AT&T exclusive). There may have been a window of opportunity where the iPhone was the only game in town in terms of smartphone, and Android handsets hadn’t yet adopted a similar form factor.

    But these days with Android phones accounting for 90% of the worldwide market…it’s really hard to think that Apple’s abusing their dominance…uhhh what dominance now?

    • It’s Me

      There was never a dominance in Canada. This was only ever an attempt by robellus to distract and redirect blame for the insane rates they charge. Nothing easier than saying “blame Apple” and it’s amazing people opened their mouths wide to swallow that load.

  • ciderrules

    How many millions did they waste on this?

    • Rev0lver

      It’s not a waste at all. It’s literally the mandate of the competition bureau to investigate potential anti-competitive activities.

    • ciderrules

      Frivolous investigations are a waste. They should spend a little more time up front deciding if there’s merit before launching into a full investigation.

      Meanwhile they’re doing nothing about the much bigger problem of Telus, Rogers and Bell. How can they charge virtyally identical prices for plans and not be accused of price fixing is beyond me.

    • Rev0lver

      I’m not sure it was frivolous but I agree that the big three Telecom companies should be a top priority.

    • It’s Me

      They investigate when there is a complaint. They should have perhaps considered the source of the complaints in this case before wasting so much time and money.

    • Rev0lver

      Who was the source of the complaint?

    • It’s Me

      It was kept anonymous, but given the nature of the complaints, dealing with very specific private contractual issues, it’s pretty obvious. Unless it was Apple complaining about themselves it really could only be one or more of the big 3.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      That doesn’t make sense at all… This complaint was about carriers not being able to discount other phones due to suspected agreements with Apple. The carriers shouldn’t have to “suspect” if they are the ones in agreement with Apple on this. They should have the evidence to provide this agreement since they are the agreeing party. So how can it be the big 3? This is more likely the phone manufacturers seeing low sale volumes from the carriers and wondering why carriers aren’t discounting their phones to get more sales and since Apple has had a past of price agreements, they’ll put the blame on Apple.

    • It’s Me

      Except those competitors wouldn’t have access to Apple’s agreements with the carriers, which was the heart of the complaint. So, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      That’s the purpose of the complaint. If they had access to Apple’s agreements and the evidence to provide anti-competitive agreements, this would just be a straight up lawsuit and not a complaint. If carriers were the ones to complain, they’d be in hot waters themselves because they themselves are the agreeing party to an anti-competitive agreement.

    • It’s Me

      Hahaha. Did you seriously write that? That’s just funny.

      No. A complaint is an accusation and requires facts. Otherwise we’d have lots more frivolous investigations like this. Without facts it’s libel.

      You should try lodging a few frivolous and fictitious claims without any evidence with a official government agency. See how that works out for you.

      You guys are honestly hilarious. I hope you are all putting on an act. Man I hope it’s all an act.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Okay, cut the personal attacks and let’s be serious here. Let’s assume it was one or more of the Big Three filed the complaint. Explain to me why they would do that? That’s like after you’re done dealing drugs, you go talk to cops and say that your dealer has been dealing drugs. How does that even make sense?

    • It’s Me

      A) at the time there was a lot of interest in having the carriers explain why their rates had suddenly doubled or more. They’d tried blaming the 2 year terms but anyone with grade 3 math saw that didn’t fit. It was convenient to shift blame for their massive price hikes elsewhere. Point the finger at Apple and presto, look how many people jumped on and actually thought that made sense.

      B) my personal guess is that Apple received a lot of complaints about Canadian carriers imposing especially expensive plans on iPhone users. I would fully expect Apple to approach the carriers and say “um stop screwing our users with special high rate” given other flagships with similar subsidies were available for lower prices plans. The carriers might have then used that as an excuse to raise rates for all instead of correcting iPhone plans. If they were threatened by Apple that they’d lose they iPhone if they gouged iPhone users unfairly, then that might trigger a complaint against Apple and the carriers would even be able to show exchanges where Apple was pressuring them to have more balance in their pricing.

      Just my guess. However, a complaint like this requires evidence. Given the complaint was about carrier contracts, only Apple and the carriers would have access to that evidence.

      In any case, it was a baseless accusation.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      “In 2014, the Bureau received information suggesting that Apple entered into agreements with Canadian wireless carriers that imposed potentially anti‑competitive obligations and restrictions regarding the sale and marketing of iPhones.” In either scenario, when carriers bring this to the competition bureau, they are pointing fingers at themselves whether or not they are trying to point fingers. That is literally the worse finger pointing excuse.

    • It’s Me

      How are you making that leap? You’ll notice the word “imposed”, as in forced, as in they claimed Apple forced these terms on them. They were portraying themselves as victims.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      If Apple forced these terms on them they could’ve brought these terms to court and not sign the terms, raise the prices of other handsets and then file the complaint after customers starts to complain about prices. At which point, they are co-conspirators. That sounds like a stupid thing to do.

    • It’s Me

      Brought the terms to court? Um, not exactly. They’d bring a complaint to the relevant authorities, such as happened in this case.

      In a fantasy world where these complaints had any merit and Apple controlled the market, the carriers couldn’t just refuse and then take them to court. They’d lose the iPhone for the duration of the proceedings.

      No, in the real world, they’d play ball and file a complaint. Which is what the did in this case, except the complaint was without merit and appears to have had other purposes. Look at this thread. Look how well it worked. Not one person in the circIejerk has any thought on why carriers raises rates, the main point of the complaint in question, and are instead still focused on Apple, they party just cleared of any wrong doing. If someone wanted to come up with a plan to distract the simple from questioning high rates in Canada, they really couldn’t have done it any better.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      If you have evidence you can take it to court. That is how the real world works. That is how you have ridiculous lawsuits. That is how you have lawsuits that have no grounds because even people with no grounds and facts attempt lawsuits. I don’t know what Canada you live in but there’s something wrong with the Canada you describe. Once you sign a contract, you acknowledge that you are aware of your actions and that you willfully commit to the actions of the contract.

      Also nowhere in the document does it say the carriers are victimized. The investigation is on whether Apple entered an anti-competitive agreement with carriers.

    • It’s Me

      Actually, no, in the real world, you take them to the competition bureau. That’s why we have an competition bureau. That might lead to a court case, but if you are claiming anti-competitive behaviour, you take it to that authority…the competition bureau. Did you think they were given that name accidentally?

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Yes, you’re right on that, if you have evidence, you can take it to the competition bureau but for legal services, not to file a complaint and have them investigate using the evidence you have only to find no evidence.

    • It’s Me

      Any accusation is alleged until it is actually proven. That doesn’t mean you don’t require any evidence to make the accusation. Well, I suppose you don’t need any evidence, but without evidence, the accusation is simply libel.

      As for the carriers, it costs them nothing to file the complaint. And if the investigation did require some resources from them, it would be worth it. They get attention diverted from them, which clearly worked. And, as a side benefit, just the launch and publicity of the investigation might help to dissuade Apple from continuing to pressure them not to screw iPhone users on plans. With so many people willing to buy this BS, without any thought as usual, there could have been a chance that Apple would just back down and the carriers would be free to screw iPhone users, whom the carriers saw as their own little cash cow.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Seriously, you’re stretching your arguments thinner and thinner.

    • It’s Me

      How so? Your premise is based on the CB launching major investigations without any basis in fact or evidence. That’s just not how things work. You want them to start an expensive investigation, you file a complaint with some evidence. Only by assuming no need for evidence can one get to your position of it being another OEM that started the investigation of contracts between Apple and the carriers…talk about stretching.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      So what happened to this evidence submitted by the carriers? The bureau came up with nothing. What happened to it? You’re a carrier and you’re filing a complaint saying Apple is preventing you from discounting other prices/services. Why not just breach the contract, discount the other handsets, and have Apple lawyers come after you and then present that as evidence? Why spend two years investigating?

      I’m saying no evidence in, no evidence out. You’re saying some evidence in, no evidence out, even though that evidence magically came out of nowhere because as you said, they’re really trying to shift the blame to Apple for something else they’ve done. So what evidence? They forged it?

    • It’s Me

      Why would they breach? Bell and Telus spent years begging to be allowed to sell the iPhone. Breaching wouldn’t result in Apple suing them, they’d just lose access to selling the iPhone.

      The value of the evidence would come down to how it was viewed. The evidence was likely their agreements and records of their discussions, especially the discussions after agreements were already in place. If Apple threatened to pull their iPhone if a carrier didn’t stop singling out iPhone users for special gouging, that might be enough to file a complaint. Get the right softheaded bureaucrat to listen and they might agree that Apple was pushing them around to get their way. If the carriers claimed, opposite to what Apple actually requested, that Apple’s request for fair treatment actually meant for the carriers to raise prices for all (especially since that’s exactly what the carriers did) then someone might actually believe that.

      Two outcomes, even with thin and misapplied evidence: apple either backs down (by choice or force) or the complaint goes nowhere but attention shifts to Apple for a while and off of the carriers behaviour. Seems to have worked out exactly as one would expect, because that’s exactly what happened (the latter). A lot of non-Apple users actually started blaming Apple for the high rates they pay. Sure, they might be the dimmer bulbs, but they still bought it and spread it, even right here with fellow commenters.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      No, if I was the CB investigating, why dance around with evidence that ended up not being evidence. I would just advise the carrier to breach and Apple would present itself with threats indicative of anti-competition. Not spend two years inquiring Apple and other carriers letting them know you’re investigating them.

    • It’s Me

      Because once an investigation is launched, they needed to get a full picture of the entire situation, hence the requests for gobs and gobs of records from Apple…thousands and thousands of documents. No one ever accuses the government of acting quickly.

      Why would the carriers breach? And what exactly would they be breaching? Breaching would do them no good. All it would mean is that carrier wouldn’t be selling iPhones, something they were desperate to keep doing.

      If their was no clause in the formal contracts about this specifically then there would be nothing to breach anyway. But the terms likely allowed for Apple to terminate the agreements or at the very least not to renew them. That would give Apple the leverage to make such a demand…and at that point, trying to get the CB for force them to retract the demand would the best outcome of a CB action, but not the only positive one. The value of distracting the masses from blaming them was priceless.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      So all of a sudden Apple stops supplying iPhone to one or more of the three big carriers after breaching. The big 3 with the most customer base. That doesn’t sound suspicious at all.

    • It’s Me

      They sold to Rogers only for years. What’s suspicious about it? Apple makes it very clear that selling iPhones privilege for a carrier not a right…that’s why they are able to negotiate very favourable terms with carriers.

      Seriously, what’s suspicious about it? It’s called business. If you have an in demand product or service, you have more leverage in your discussions. The carriers hate that (here and elsewhere). What better way to get Apple to bend than to get the gov on your side, especially when even if you lose, you still win elsewhere (distracting the dimwitted).

    • Homer J. Simpson

      So instead of straightening out with the carrier on the down low, they would just do a high profile move and lose at least a third of the customers in Canada? Sure, that sounds like Apple.

    • It’s Me

      Carriers beg to sell the iPhone, not the other way around. If carriers continued to single out iPhone users with higher rates, Apple would rightly expect to lose sales of iPhones. They probably wouldn’t want that. Let’s say bell lost the iPhone and Telus and Rogers got inline and stopped gouging iPhone users, that’s worst case if Apple had to act on their threat. iPhone users move from bell and end up with a better deal as well. Bell wouldn’t want that and they aren’t dim enough to think customers are more loyal to them than to their own wallets or Apple. Bell (or whichever carrier was the example) would lose much more than Apple. Not sure why that’s such a difficult concept for you. Have you never negotiated for anything? You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept.

      Using their leverage to get what they want…yeah, you’re right, that does sound like Apple.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      All the while shareholders are not concerned by Apple dropping one or more or all of the big 3 carriers in Canada, or that the carriers have dropped Apple.

    • It’s Me

      Unlikely to be all 3….unless they are negotiating with Apple together, which might be an anti-trust conflict on it own.

      Again, you keep bringing up breaching. That isn’t likely a threat on either side because makes little sense. But using leverage in negotiations? Why is that such a difficult concept for you? Seems like a simple concept almost anyone would be familiar with. Even a child learns to negotiate fairly young.

      Anyway, clearly this isn’t going anywhere and I’m not sure if it’s because you are intentionally being obtuse or if simple things like leverage and negotiation are really such difficult concepts. Either way I don’t see much value in repeating the same explanations over and over and taking in circles. So, have a good night.

    • It’s Me

      Deleted. Replied to wrong post.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Okay next time your boss is penalizing you for always being late, you just go to the police and tell them that a drug dealer is forcing you to buy and use drugs from him, so you can’t focus and get to work on time. That’ll get the police attention focused on the drug dealer and not get you fired. Good night.

  • Brad Fortin

    This should come as no surprise to anyone except the most hardcore of Apple haters.

    • thereasoner

      Can’t blame anyone for thinking the worst considering the lowlife douchebags that run Apple. This is the same company that organized an eBook price fixing scam that ripped off hundreds of millions from their own customers after all.

      Only blind fanatical iFans would place trust in that despicable company obviously !

    • I don’t think the price agreements were right, but keep in mind what they were a response to: Amazon price dumping (that is, selling below cost ) to squeeze rivals out of the market. It’s like moving back to the swamp because you don’t enjoy living in the sewers. Neither is ideal, but you’re just trading one problem for another.

    • It’s Me

      Yup. Fanatics like thereasoner conveniently omit or forget facts like amazon was [close to] a monopoly at the time and Apple had almost 0 market share. Yet the case was against the party with no market share while ignoring the predatory pricing practice of dumping by the dominant party.

      But he gets off on bashing Apple so it’s understandable. He might be kind of conflicted right now. Talking about ebooks appears to give him wood but this article clearly Apple of any wrong doing here might leave him flaccid.

    • thereasoner

      Brad, Apple deserves all the “bashing” they have received for this one. It’s one of their most despicable, not to mention illegal acts, that they’ve have ever committed. You need not be a “fanatic” to despise those who steal from you. To defend said behavior on the other hand….

    • It’s Me

      What did they steal? Do you not even understand what they were charged with? Did they act even affect you? It must have since you claim that’s why you dispise them. But if it didn’t, that’s a pretty poor attempt at rationalizing your fanaticism…just evidence of it in fact.

      Maybe if you’d stayed in school you would understand. Then again, school isn’t for everyone. We need mindless labourers. So, you have that 🙂

    • thereasoner

      I love it when you cry and resort to ad hominem attacks every time you find yourself unable to defend your God Apple. You really have no idea just how amusing it is!

    • It’s Me

      What as hom do you imagine? Facts aren’t insulting. They are simply facts. Are you in your mid 50s and doing mindless labour? Check. Poorly educated? Check. If you’d be able to continue your education don’t you think that would have been advantageous? Being better educated is better…duh.

      You might consider those insulting, but that’s your own insecurities coming out. It’s your life after all.

    • What Amazon did could easily be construed as illegal. As was mentioned, price dumping is anti-competitive when a dominant company uses it to starve rivals out of business. Intel, for example, had to pay billions in fines and settlements for using price dumping to hurt AMD’s market position.

      This doesn’t excuse any collusion, but portraying Apple as vile while Amazon is just conducting business as usual? That’s objectively, unquestionably wrong.

    • thereasoner

      I’m making it as Apple unquestionably did something illegal by fixing e-book prices and stealing from consumers while Amazon did nothing out of the ordinary, much less illegal.

      Unless of course you have a link to Amazons conviction of “price dumping”, theft from consumers and subsequent fines for doing so….

      Crickets,….

      You’re right about one thing though. It wouldn’t excuse Apple regardless but in my view comparing a loss leader strategy to what went down between AMD and Intel is an act of desperation from an unethical company that got caught red handed.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Not sure that’s what happened with Intel. Intel actually had terms and contracts with manufacturers and gave discounts if they were to not buy from competitors. That was what was wrong. That’s not what Amazon is doing.

    • PeterC

      Somethings are illegal when you have a monopoly, but Amazon never had a monopoly in ebook sales.

      Look up the legal/business definition of monopoly.

    • It’s Me

      That is correct, that some activities are illegal only for a monopoly. But amazon was and is much closer to the legal definition of a monopoly in books and ebooks than Apple ever was. They were and are the 800lbs gorilla yet their activities get a pass.

    • thereasoner

      What Amazon was doing is called a “loss leader”, they underprice so to attract people to their store presumably so customers also buy other products that are not loss leaders. It’s a very common practice in various business, even grocery stores do it and most importantly it is NOT illegal while it simultaneously gives consumers a good deal.

      What Apple did to fix e-book price was indeed ILLEGAL, they were fined almost half a BILLION dollars for it and it not only DIDN’T offer the consumer any benefit it simultaneously stole HUNDREDS of MILLIONS from them while Apple padded their coffers with said STOLEN cash.

      “trading one problem for another”? Are you serious? I almost peed my pants I was laughing so hard at that one!

    • It’s Me

      Actually, when a monopoly player with dominant market control dumps product at a loss to hurt competitors that is often considered anti-competitive. The judge in the case even mentioned that a case could be brought against amazon for anti-competitive behaviour. But, when the president of the US sleeps at your house and you are one of his biggest donors and fundraiser, the threat of action is slim.

    • thereasoner

      Sounds like a whole lot of paranoia and sour grapes from fanboys of a company that got caught red handed to me.

      Jon Fingas is correct as at least he will recognize that lame excuse doesn’t excuse Apple from it’s unethical theft from consumers regardless. Not to mention that it says a lot about Apple executives if their reaction to what they perceive to be unfair business practices from another company is to steal from their own customers!

      No matter how you fanatical fanboys spin it the executives at Apple come out of it as the low life anti-consumer douchebags that they are. But hey, at least now with a new President your pariniod theory about favouritism can now be proven…..NOT, lmfao!!

    • It’s Me

      again, you are confused. What theft do you keep going on about?

      See, school would have helped your reading abilities and you wouldn’t be stuck making things up. Did you even get your high school diploma or was that as waste of time too? Honest question. Sometimes you seem like maybe you do and sometimes it seems like maybe grade 9 was the end.

    • Vito R.

      I enjoy your anti-Apple bias and inability to admit when you’re wrong.

      Please never change.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Apple forced publishers to withhold books from Amazon unless Amazon raised the price to what Apple wanted. Amazon, on the other hand, discounts their own e-books at no profit or a loss to get more customers for their other products. There’s a difference between force setting a price for rivals and discounting your own sale items as a promotional strategy.

    • It’s Me

      No. That’s not even close to what happened.

      Apple sought agreements from the publisher to use the agency model so publisher set prices instead of retailers. And they sought MFN status, meaning that if a competitor like amazon decided to dump books at a loss, as they regularly did, Apple would be allowed to see at the same price.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Yeah… so essentially Apple forced Amazon to raise their prices because publishers now set the price and terms. If they can’t come to this agreement, publishers would withold the books from Amazon. How is this not what I said?

    • It’s Me

      Amazon wasn’t forced to do anything. You said Apple forced publishers to withhold their books from amazon, which was fiction. That amazon choose to do anything, given their massively dominant position in the market, ca only be called laughable to say they were forced to do anything.

      Keep trying. It does seem like the regular circIejerk crew is agreeing with you but that’s hardly surprising. It’s the nature of circIejerks…no one needs to think.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Steve Jobs actually said the words that publishers were withholding from Amazon when asked about prices of ebooks from Apple vs Amazon. Here is an excerpt from the court documents downloaded from justice gov website said about what Jobs said:

      “Jobs’s statements to James Murdoch that he understood the Publishers’ concerns that “Amazon’s $9.99 price for new releases is eroding the value perception of their products . . . and they do not want this practice to continue,” and that Apple was thus “willing to try at the [$12.99 and $14.99] prices we’ve proposed,” underscored Apple’s commitment to a scheme with the Publisher Defendants to raise e-book prices. Jobs’s purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon’s $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will “be the same” is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon’s ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated. When Jobs told his biographer the next day that, in light of the MFN, the Publisher Defendants “went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not going to give you the books,’” Jobs was referring to the fact that Sargent was in Seattle that very day to deliver Macmillan’s ultimatum to Amazon.

      Now if you want to get into the details saying that Apple technically didn’t directly force Amazon to raise their prices to what the publishers set to, but emails sent by Apple to publishers actually discussed plans to eliminate retail pricing and raise ebook prices by at least $3 and that all resellers of new titles need to be in the agency model. However you want to look at it, that to me is Apple forcing Amazon because they were aware of Amazon and that clause would be forced on Amazon as well.

    • It’s Me

      Again, that’s not forcing amazon to do anything and certainly it isn’t Apple forcing them. Jobs might have anticipated that amazon would switch, but given amazon’s far and away dominant position in the market, they could have stayed with the wholesale model instead.

      The best you can say is that Apple colluded with the publishers to have them pressure amazon. But Apple, with zero market share, could hardly force amazon to do anything.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Amazon is forced to give up the business of selling new titles if they were to stick with the wholesale model, thereby forcing them to agree to the agency model and raise the ebook prices. If your significant other tells you to either get rid of the cat or he/she is out of your life, is that not forcing you to compromise?

    • It’s Me

      If your significant other forces you, then they forced you. But her best friend who encouraged her to do it wasnt the one that forced you. The best friend might have encouraged it and even benefitted from it, but they weren’t in a position to force anything on you.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      In this scenario, her best friend gave her the ultimatum that if she didn’t give you this ultimatum, she would no longer be her friend. That’s not the same thing as encouraging.

    • It’s Me

      Of course it is. The best friend has no leverage over you. And the best friend was a new friend and had no established relationship with your wife, so she wouldn’t even have much leverage over your wife. But it all comes down to the relationship between you and your wife, not the best friend.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      I see. So your explanation says Apple didn’t practice anti-competition and that they didn’t come to a contractual agreement with the publishers to force all other resellers to switch to the agency model. The judges were all just wrong about everything and the verdict is clearly wrong. Got it.

    • It’s Me

      There was nothing contractual to force other retailers to the agency model.

      In fact, Apple initially rejected the agency model. Once they did decide to use they did indeed suggest that the publishers should switch other retailers to agency. But they dropped that suggestion completely in favour of MFN status…because with MFN, Apple would benefit if the other retailers stayed on the wholesale model because they’d be allowed to match prices and still take a 30% cut. Amazon could have stayed wholesale and it would have benefited Apple if they did so. That they chose to switch in order not to let Apple have that advantage was their choice.

      The publishers would benefit greatly if amazon switched to agency and since they granted MFN status to Apple, they’d actually lose out if only Apple went agency.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      Right got it. Apple was innocent. Thanks for clarifying.

    • It’s Me

      They might be guilty, just not of what you claim. At least not exactly.

    • Homer J. Simpson

      You should become an attorney.

    • It’s Me

      Have too many in my family as it is.

    • PeterC

      Good job telling half the story. Apple wanted the publishers to set the price but Apple also had a clause that said they could not sell books anywhere cheaper than Apple’s store.

      So if Amazon negotiated a good deal with publishers, Apple’s clause said books sold in Apple’s store have to be same or cheaper price.

      That doesn’t sound like Apple letting publishers decide the price.

    • It’s Me

      Um, the agency model, by definition is letting the publishers set the price. That’s not half the story, that is the story, whether you understand that or not. The MFN clause didn’t say publisher couldn’t sell for lower prices, it said that if any retailer sold a book for cheaper, then Apple had the right to match that price. Price matching is sort of a well established practice in retail.

    • PeterC

      No surprise? Meaning it was obvious Apple did nothing wrong?

      Please show some evidence that it was obvious Apple was the “good guy”

    • It’s Me

      Show evidence they weren’t…that’s how things work. Are you often asked to present evidence you aren’t a criminal? Should you have to be asked?

    • PeterC

      That is for a criminal trial.

      This was just an investigation. If it was obvious Apple did nothing wrong, the investigation wouldn’t have taken years.

      Stop being a drama queen.

    • Vito R.

      You obviously don’t know how government agencies work – nothing is ever done quick. They even *stated* at the beginning of the”investigation” that they had no evidence Apple did anything wrong.

      I feel this was all just a make work project for them.

    • It’s Me

      Umm, any investigation or accusation should be supported with facts, sorry that’s inconvenient to your narrative. You might be of the opinion that one must prove ones innocence instead of the accuser having to prove their case, but thankfully we don’t live in such a dumb and backward world. That would suck.

    • Bravo! Slow clap … 🙂
      well done

    • Brad Fortin

      That’s not the way it works. If you make a claim that Apple is a “bad guy” you have to present evidence to support your claim.

    • Scazza

      Hey thanks for the call out, sorry for the late reply, I don’t sit at home in mommas basement hitting F5 all day, so forgive me for not rushing in here to “admit I’m wrong”.

      Nothing I said in the original post from awhile back was false. I’ve worked in the industry for years and Apple does have many rules that carriers must follow that can create what some would deem unfair. The big one being threat of removal of the license to sell Iphones if you don’t follow along with their insane agreements. So much so that their agreements state in caps something along the lines of “under penalty of being barred from selling iphones” that everyone must abide by, including individual retailers and carriers. Using that threat to bully retailers into following some rules like exclusive advertising, or forcing retailers to purchase demo units or face not being a licensed retailer.

      So if the competition bureau finds that to be fair, sounds good, and yes I was wrong. However their tactics and threats are unique to them, and no other oem goes to the lengths that Apple does.

  • TheCuddlyKoala

    Apple-1, Canada-0

    • It’s Me

      Canada didn’t lose anything except wasted tax dollars. Apple didn’t win anything except a waste of resources. The only winners were the carriers who managed to confuse the dimwitted.

    • Cowpoke

      Apple FTW, dude-bro.

    • Nothing is wasted by Apple … this gave them free press equaling Brand Name Recognition in the positive light.

    • It’s Me

      Well, other than 2 years of bad press, repeated constantly by the usual muppets, that they were guilty.

  • RichieRich

    Hmm… Apple is “dominant” in the Canadian market? Funny. There are those on this site who would have you believe there are a dozen iPhone owners in Canada. Once the iPhone 8 sells 180 million, no doubt a majority of which will be in North America, we should see some fun discussions here.

  • PeterC

    From the source statement from the Competition Bureau, “… Abuse of a dominant position occurs when a dominant firm … in a market engages in a practice of anti‑competitive acts, __with the result that competition has been … lessened substantially.__ As the Bureau has not found sufficient evidence to suggest Apple’s current practices have substantially lessened or prevented competition in any relevant market, or are likely to do so, the inquiry has been discontinued.”

    The important part is the highlighted part, “WITH the result that competition has been … lessened substantially.”

    So what the Competition Bureau is saying is since Apple doesn’t have a dominant market share, those contract clauses Apple has with carriers are ok.

    • Especially since there are MORE Android devices sold across Canada for just about all providers named than Apple devices.

  • Cowpoke Sal

    Lovin’ the new homepage, y’all! Cleaner, clearer and all round betterer!

  • Pingback: Amazon Canada fined $1 million for employing misleading pricing practices | Mo.bi - Leading Brand In Mobile Business()