- Apple may have conquered Microsoft and become the new king of the technology world in terms of profits and net worth, but Steve Jobs and Co. now have a new opponent: investigators for the Department of Justice. The DOJ is asking questions about Apple's business practices involving digital music and has been investigating the company for the past three weeks. Investigators have interviewed executives at record companies and digital music stores in an attempt to determine whether Apple has employed anticompetitive tactics. Right now, sources say the investigation is still in its early stages and there is no evidence that the DOJ has found anything substantial enough to file a complaint against Apple. The heart of the investigation seems to be the question of whether Apple, through its iTunes store, has used its prominence in the digital music world to discourage two of the top record companies from participating in a special Amazon music promotion called the "MP3 Daily Deal." Apple has a reputation for being a bully in the digital music world and with the iTunes store accounting for 70 percent of all digital song sales, the company definitely carries significant clout with record labels. In 2005, Apple CEO Steve Jobs chastised top recording companies for "getting greedy" by considering variable pricing on songs and albums. Apple haggled and eventually agreed to certain controls on pricing, but held strong against demands to give record companies the ability to sell albums that were unbundled. Apple had no interest in allowing popular LPs to be sold only as a comprehensive unit instead of as individual songs and has not given much ground on the issue. Users of the iTunes store have often hailed these efforts by Apple as sticking up for the little guy, especially ensuring that customers would not be compelled to buy full albums if they only wanted a song or two and paying for songs they didn’t want. It is a major issue and yet consumers have become so familiar with the system as it now stands, few even give it a second thought. All along the way, the government never stepped in to reprimand Apple for its business practices. Now, the new king of the tech world seems to have crossed a line that the government is unwilling to ignore. It all has to do with Amazon's "MP3 Daily Deal," a promotion that involves cutting prices on specific music titles and marketing them heavily on the day of their release. For these songs, Amazon is often able to secure exclusive access to the music for a period of time. That didn’t sit well with Apple, whose managers reportedly informed the labels that any music included in Amazon's promotion would receive no promotion at iTunes. One of the more prominent examples of this practice involved material from Alicia Keys, which Apple saw promoted as part of the Daily Deal and registered displeasure over it with Sony Music Entertainment. Other instances have seen Corinne Bailey Rae's "The Sea," Lady Antebellum's "Need You Now," and Ke$ha's "Animal" (all crappy songs by terrible artists, by the way) as subjects of Apple’s battle versus Amazon. I suppose that if you want to dominate the music market (the iTunes store accounted for 28 percent of all music purchased by U.S. consumers in the first quarter of this year), these anti-competitive, threatening tactics would be a good way to accomplish it. Of course, it would also be illegal and unethical, but no one wins in business by being legal, ethical and honest, right………….
- This next story just about crushed my soul and ruined my day, so be forewarned. Jared Allen, the man who has come to represent the lifestyle that is the mullet and became a hero to millions because of his courage to rock the Mississippi Mudflap day in, day out, has done the unthinkable and lopped off his Canadian Passport. Allen, the Minnesota Vikings' star defensive end, may have created his own iPhone app with a “Mullet Generator” program that shows aspiring wearers of the business up top, party in the back how they would look with their very own mullet, but with his wedding fast approaching, he has caved in to the demands of his future wife and cut his hair for the big day. "The things men do for love," Allen told Vikings.com. Again, this is a guy who has said time and again in interviews that the mullet is a "lifestyle," not just a hairdo. He has inspired thousands to join his "Mullet Militia," rock the group’s t-shirts and download his app. In a 2009 interview, Allen waxed philosophic about his adoration and respect for his mullet. "The mullet isn't just a hairdo. It's definitely a lifestyle. You're carrying on a legacy," he said. "If I approach you from the front, it's like, wow, that dude is pretty serious. Then I walk away and you're like, damn, he likes to party. With two Rs." Flat-out awesome, bro. But if it’s truly a lifestyle, then how do you turn your back on it for a woman? I haven’t seen any pictures of Allen’s fiancée, but she had better be a cross between Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba, Kristin Kreuk, Scarlett Johansson and Megan Fox if Allen is selling out and shaving his Tennessee Top Hat for her. Now, Allen did tease a possible return of his mullet at some point, so don’t lose all hope. In actuality, as long as that thing is back for the start of the upcoming season, it may not be as bad as I initially feared. If he has to chop it for wedding pictures but has permission to start growing it back the instant that ceremony ends, I might be able to digest this news more easily. Bring it back, Jared, bring that luscious Wisconsin Waterfall back as soon as humanly possible. Mullet Nation and the world as a whole are rooting for it……………
- Oh goodie, here we go again. We all had more than enough of reality TV ass hats Jon and Kate Gosselin on their now-defunct reality series "Jon and Kate Plus 8," but let’s go ahead and pile on more exposure to at least one of them - Kate. Coming off of a stint on ABC’s “Dancing With the (D-List) Stars” in which she was the target of plenty of fan hate (Gee, famous for no reason besides popping out eight kids, played out her family drama on reality TV, no discernable talent or soul), Kate Gosselin and her exploited children are set to debut in her solo spinoff show on TLC, “Kate Plus 8.” The show will purportedly show the new, single-working-mother side of Kate, but I prefer to call it more of the same old garbage, sans one of the show’s main ass clowns. But TLC clearly feels that one show featuring Gosselin and her band of brats isn’t enough, because the new show will be accompanied by not one, but two specials, with the first featuring the family on a surprise trip to Orlando for the sextuplets' sixth birthday. “Highlights include the kids feeding sting rays at Discovery Cove, swimming with the dolphins, feeding exotic birds, riding in an air boat and taking in the sights of the Everglades, [and] partaking in an orange juice squeezing contest,” according to a statement from TLC. Great, but why do I care? Why do I want to see these losers going on a family trip to Orlando any more than I want to see family vacation videos of a Disney World trip from some random stranger on the street? This is the very core of why I hate reality shows like this one, which pretend to follow the real lives of people I don’t know or care about. First, the shows are anything but real, with teams of writers and producers steering every scene. Second, you’re picking a person who has done nothing to be famous or get on TV, putting them on camera and giving them the false impression that they are relevant and special. I don’t know them, I don’t care and that’s why I have zero interest in a TV special providing a “behind-the-scenes” look at what it’s like to be Kate. I don’t need that show to know: no soul, an IQ of 47, a sense of entitlement and a total lack of ability to understand my absolute worthlessness to the world as a whole. “Inside Kate’s World” may have a few no-life-having losers to watch it, but not me. I don’t need your “unique, never before seen glimpse into the day-to-day routine of the single mother, entrepreneur, best-selling author, dance partner and friend,” TLC. She’s not my friend and as much as I wish you would cancel the two hours of Kate plus her eight brats, I realize it will air June 6 at 9 p.m. and all I can do is make my best effort to block out all knowledge of and exposure to it………….
- Sweet, more evidence that tanning beds are in essence ginormous boxes of death. According to a new study, people who regularly use tanning beds may double or even triple their risk of developing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. In the study, participants who have used a tanning booth or similar service even once have about a 75 percent higher risk of melanoma, on average, than those who have never tried it. The risk of melanoma was also higher among frequent and long-term indoor tanners than in those who tan outdoors. When compated to those who had never slammed themselves into a bathing suit and goggles and sat inside a cancer box for 15 or 30 minutes, individuals who spent more than 50 hours under the lights were three times more likely to develop melanoma. The study, which is the largest of its kind to date, also revealed that people who visited tanning salons for more than 10 years or who logged more than 100 sessions were about 2.5 times more likely to develop the cancer. Lest you think this is some biased research conducted by a group with a personal vendetta against the tanning industry, just know that the study is saying very similar things to what an FDA advisory panel is saying as it ponders tougher regulations on indoor tanning. The panel is considering use restrictions (possibly an outright ban) on indoor tanning for people under age 18. The panel’s most recent meeting, in late March, focused on strengthening skin-cancer warnings at tanning salons and moving tanning beds to a class of medical devices that includes CT scanners, among other measures. By the way, if someone is legitimately thinking of classifying a device you use for non-essential, cosmetic enhancements in the same category as CT scanners, shouldn’t that be a huge sign that you shouldn’t be using the device in the first place? At that March meeting, the FDA panel heard testimony that was "pretty compelling," says Dr. Lynn Drake, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, and a nonvoting member of the panel. "This new study adds to the body of evidence supporting the fact that indoor tanning poses significant risks." It’s worth noting that in spite of a potential ban on teen tanning, teens do not seem to be more susceptible than adults to artificial ultraviolet (UV) rays. Instead, the study’s results suggest that melanoma risk is more directly tied to total exposure time as opposed to the span of time in which that exposure occurs. “Given our findings, the age you start indoor tanning may matter less than how much you do it," says the lead author of the study, DeAnn Lazovich, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota. "Maybe a ban should also be considered for adults." No beef there, professor. Fact is, of the nearly 70,000 people in the U.S. who received a melanoma diagnosis in 2009, you wonder what percentage of them were in that position in the name of beauty through indoor tanning. Maybe they don’t realize the severity of melanoma, which is deadly because it can invade deep into tissues and spread to other parts of the body. Given the age of people you typically see patronizing tanning salons, it’s no surprise that melanoma is the second-most-common cancer among people ages 15 to 29. The study itself appears in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention and included nearly 1,200 melanoma patients in Minnesota and a cancer-free control group. Of the melanoma patients in the study, a jaw-dropping 63 percent had tanned indoors at least once, compared with 51 percent of the melanoma-free individuals. Researchers also measured the melanoma risk associated with different types of tanning machines, comparing high-speed and high-pressure machines. Those who used such devices had roughly three and 4.5 times the risk of developing melanoma, respectively. In case you’re not up on the latest in cancer box technology, high-speed machines use higher amounts of ultraviolet-B (UVB) light while high-pressure machines use more ultraviolet-A (UVA). Predictably, the Indoor Tanning Association, a trade organization representing tanning facilities and suppliers, objected to the study and tried to spin the results in its favor. John Overstreet, a spokesperson for the association, tried to muddy the waters by claiming that unanswered questions remain, including the fact that vitamin D, which is produced by the skin with moderate UV exposure, may have cancer-fighting benefits. "Science is still wrestling with this issue and there's certainly still more to learn," Overstreet said. "We welcome a more complete body of research that will allow us to advise our customers how to achieve their goals without unnecessary risk of exposure." Nice try, cancer box proprietors, but no. Stop killing people, stop playing to their vanity and do us all a favor by just going away……….
No comments:
Post a Comment