Norway declares Apple’s iTunes illegal
This is ridiculous. And Finland has backed Norway’s stance…
Apple was dealt a blow in Europe on Wednesday when Norway’s powerful consumer ombudsman ruled that its iTunes online music store was illegal because it did not allow downloaded songs to be played on rival technology companies’ devices.
The decision is the first time any jurisdiction has concluded iTunes breaks its consumer protection laws and could prompt other European countries to review the situation.
The ombudsman has set a deadline of October 1 for the Apple to make its codes available to other technology companies so that it abides by Norwegian law. If it fails to do so, it will be taken to court, fined and eventually closed down.
Phil:
What’s ridiculous about this? Do you REALLY think this wouldn’t happen in the U.S. if the cards were dealt the opposite way. I think I’ve read about U.S. authorities behaving exactly the same way “many-o-times”.
I think it’s nice to see that somebody let’s the yankees taste their own medicine for once.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Its the Nany state stupid. Come on, if consumers hate Itunes they will not buy it.
I don’t, never will. I vote with my money, not my government.
Its that simple.
Comment by winter — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Wow that is strange! What does that mean for the consumer that has itunes or ipod?
Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 1:34 am
#2: And if people hate online poker they will not play it, right?
Comment by mh — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:07 am
I don’t understand why anyone would but digital music that restricts you to only one company’s player. It is DRM that is the problem. Clearly many people don’t care since Apple has sold over a billion songs. So if they don’t care, I don’t see why Norway should.
As for Apple, they will probably just close down the Norway shop. It’s not like Norwegians would not be able to use another Apple site to get their music.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:34 am
Is there some special reason why you wrote “Noway” in the picture?
Comment by iJusten — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:47 am
Sounds like there’s an antitrust element to this case. I don’t know how practical Norway’s move is, but I’m principally in favor of it. Letting companies dominate the marketplace with lock-in strategies (and thereby minimize competitors’ chances of entering it) only raises prices for end consumer.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:35 am
Oh come on you saying “nanny state”, it’s not the government of Norway saying iTunes is illegal, but the local consumer agency. (Yes, true, in nordic countries it not a must to sue always to make some progress).
Comment by Juba — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:43 am
The big record companies demand digital rights management (DRM) hacks that restrict the usage(copying from device to another) of the downloadable songs. It is quite difficult to have interroperability between different devices and DRM together. The music stores based on Microsofts DRM technology aren’t any better than Apples store. They also lock people to Microsofts software and devices. I will personally never buy any DRM encumbered songs. It is easier for me to just buy the CD and rip it to mp3s or whatever.
Comment by Jani — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:20 am
The state should just stay out of this - Apple can whatever they want, and people should be allowed to download and rip-to-mp3 whatever they want. It goes both ways.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:28 am
Oh come on you saying “nanny stateâ€Â, it’s not the government of Norway saying iTunes is illegal, but the local consumer agency. (Yes, true, in nordic countries it not a must to sue always to make some progress).
Ombudsmans are part of the nanny state, they’re one in the same.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:31 am
The problem is people have no clue that they are only renting the song they paid 1$ for. Read iTunes disclaimer before commenting.
Comment by Datetime() — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:43 am
This spirit should’ve been up, well atleast from the videotaping era.
Ein volk, ein reich, ein format for all media.
Well, I have to confess having a liittle malicious delight of those guys who were bragging with their beta-recorders…
Comment by issi — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:49 am
To address some points above:
Whilst I agree that Microsofts DRM (PlayForSure not their other DRM for the Zune) is just as bad, if not worse than Apples, it is more ‘open’ because 3rd parties can licence it, which appears to be what the issue is all about.
It would mean iTunes would not be allowed to sell FairPlay DRM laced tracks, it means nothing for the iPod because the iPod is an ‘open’ platform and does not require tracks to have DRM. Effectively Apple could happily sell DRM-less music, music with an alternate DRM scheme or licence FairPlay. My bet is Apple will cave on some other issues Norway is pushing them on and try to keep their DRM.
I completely agree, buy CD’s and rip them. Better quality, no DRM and no compatibility issues. However I think the idea of Norways actions is to try and ensure that in the not so distant future people can vote with their wallet by having a healthy free market which right now to be fair there is not and its getting worse.
Well there is thing Phil, DRM is being used to control the ‘free market’ by everyone involved; the music industry don’t want you to be able to rip their music and actively are trying to prevent the riping of CD’s by lacing rips with DRM, same goes for movies. Apple, Microsoft, Nokia et al want control also and attempt to do so with their own DRM schemes or other types of lockin to their platforms. What Norway is doing is trying to send a message and set a president that DRM lockin limits choice and hurts the free market.
Right now we are at a cross roads regarding fair use. It is a grey area if I can make copies of my DVD collection, or be able to make copies that can be played on my iPod. Those choices are not being made by consumers and they are not being made entirely by government they are being made by unaccountable men and women in suits. Agencies like the RIAA and the MPAA are not exactly voluntary. In addition we have a technology industry that loves hardware or software lockin schemes. DRM lockin is a serious issue and needs to be addressed; how exactly can I vote with my wallet if all my ‘choices’ are the same?
Take HD DVD or BlueRay, both have so much copy protection it is a joke. Neither will really work on anything but Windows and maybe one of them will exist on the Mac; both require new hardware such as new monitors or new TV (btw anyone who has purchased a HD TV recently might still need to get new one to use these formats). HD DVD has ‘managed copy’ which allows one to make a copy of the dvd for use elsewhere, do you think that works on anything but Windows? In addition BlueRay lacks any sort of provision for copying.
My point is everyone is out to control the market one way or another regardless of the law or fair use rights in such a way as to give consumers no real choice but to opt out completly or become pirates. The lawsuit against Apple could be a good thing, but they should be targeting everyone involved and not singling out Apple IMHO
Oh and the copy protection on both HD DVD and BlueRay has already been defeated making all of this DRM shit even more absurd because it proved yet again that people who pirate content will always find a way and its good old regular consumers who take it in the ass.
Comment by John — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:16 am
It is not ‘renting’ it is licencing for a specific use. But this is the same for purchased CD’s also and everyother form of legal consumption of digital goods. But yes people dont understand to the terms of what they are agreeing.
Comment by John — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:20 am
What Norway is doing is trying to send a message and set a president that DRM lockin limits choice and hurts the free market.
DRM does nothing to hurt the free market. Companies are free be assholes lace their content with DRM, and consumers are free get their content from elsewhere.
The real tragedy lies with the state when they pass crazy laws the prohibits people from ripping their own CDs or filesharing.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:59 am
“The real tragedy lies with the state when they pass crazy laws the prohibits people from ripping their own CDs or filesharing.”
So you are against democracy? You prefer weak governments with no means to limit companies forming monopolies or punishing price fixing? That is the Achilles heel of neoliberalism. Robber barons could do whatever they like.
The Apple iTunes is just another form of trying to create a monopoly and there is nothing better a company could have than monopoly.
Comment by tim73 — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Well, I don’t much like this ridiculous situation where Apple is applying purely Microsoftian tactics: forcing its standards and exluding all other formats. That is done in order to extinguish competition and to establish a virtual monopoly. Which is a natural tendency for any private corporation that automatically aims to maximize its short term profits. This is why we need anti-monopoly regulations and strong state policies to protect the free competition and the free market. Of course, in this particular case Norway has obviously over reacted - this is bound to be a counterproductive and empty gesture.
Comment by mjr — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Norway. Isn’t that the same country that keeps on fishing for whales …and calls it research? I wonder what Apple should name their iTunes store then in order to bend the rules in their favour…
I agree with Phil. Let me vote with my wallet.
Comment by majava — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
So you are against democracy?
Sure, when it infringes on my rights.
You prefer weak governments with no means to limit companies forming monopolies or punishing price fixing? That is the Achilles heel of neoliberalism. Robber barons could do whatever they like.
Monopolies, like Alko?
The Apple iTunes is just another form of trying to create a monopoly and there is nothing better a company could have than monopoly.
There’s no way that they’re even close to a monopoly, that’s ridiculous.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Yes, Phil, it is not YET a monopoly, and surely further from the road than Microsoft, but it obviously doesn’t stop Apple from trying. The role of the state here is surely to protect free competition and the market place. Without the strong state and the rule of law, corporations would behave - rationally, mind you - to maximize their profits in all possible ways whether ethical or unethical, ends would justify means. That’s the way of the world…
Comment by mjr — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
majava:
I agree concerning the whales, but I don’t agree with Phil. I think it’s time for U.S. corporations to taste their own medicine. Or the medicine provided by the U.S. government to help U.S. corporations “compete”.
IMHO, these things (whales vs. copyright, or whatever similar legal mumbo-jumbo issues) are not in ANYWAY connected.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
#20: So, finns can’t be against monopolies just because we have Alko?
Not every finn is very fond of Alko. Please tell me who sohuld I vote so we can get rid of Alko.
Comment by mh — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
mh:
“Please tell me who sohuld I vote so we can get rid of Alko.”
First of all, a ground rule for every anti-Alko idiot. Alko can be ridden of by means of parliamentary decision. It’s scary that people “have to be/are” taught this essential fact via this “balanced” (I wouldn’t use that word) media filtering blog.
But regardless of who you vote for it isn’t going to guarantee that Alko is gone. There is this little inconveniant thing called democracy in the way. If you don’t like Alko, there might be millions who like Alko. And in this situation your anti-Alko vote is lost.
So you should THINK before you vote, given that Tony Halme does a good job of impersonating the “loser” he wanted to attack in his campaign.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
“You prefer weak governments with no means to limit companies forming monopolies or punishing price fixing? That is the Achilles heel of neoliberalism. Robber barons could do whatever they like.”
“Monopolies, like Alko?”
You fail to answer to tim73s arguement.
Comment by Blah — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Do you think this will make my iTunes stocks rise?
http://iam.always.online.fr/tr.php?wordid=1931
Comment by RobertoSucco — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Ok, I will leave the whales alone for now… But what is this really all about? That you can’t play a song downloaded from the iTMS on player X? That’s simply not true! First of all when you download a song, you receive it on your computer. Nobody says it’s intended to be played on an iPod. The computer does not even need to be a Mac (OMG!) If you then decide to burn a disc, the disc will play anywhere! So what’s the problem? Copy those songs from the disc and you can dump them even on Zune (that curse word will probably make my post to get cought by a spam filter
And does the consumer have no choice? Are there no other music download stores? Hardly the same as with Alko. I really can’t go anywehere else than there. Well, at least it’s a nice incentive for the Norwegians to abandon paying for their music and start to copy and share again. Good for them, you go Norwegian court!
Comment by majava — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
With 5 million people in a country as backwards as Norway, it probably hardly matters to Apple. They have all that oil money yet their highway systems is the worst I have ever seen. Ever been to a Norwegian grocery store… what a joke.
Comment by uncle sam — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Phil—
I’m not sure why you’re against these antitrust-type rulings……
This case reminds me of the US justice department vs. Microsoft, concerning the level of coupling between Windoze and IExplorer. Apple’s product/service is even more tightly coupled than Microsoft’s products were. At least Microsoft allowed other browsers to run on Windows, albeit deficiently; but Apple outright disallows any competitors.
I think Milton Freedmen was wrong regarding his anti-antitrust stance (he was against antitrust regulations). I think many Libertarians disagreed with him on that one.
In the iTunes case, this could be a shot in the arm for Open Source. It’s not a Europe vs. America issue. Open Source projects from either place can benefit from rulings such as this.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
*Friedman
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Thomas—
Why is someone an idiot if they are anti-Alko?
Their prices suck, and they don’t even try to offer prices that resemble market norms. Right now, I’m drinking a Paulaner Heffe Weisen that cost about 65ct/.5L at a supermarket in Germany. I brought several cases to Finland a short time ago.
The same beer costs 3e/.5L at Alko. Same price as any of the domestic IV beers with similar alcohol content. How long do you think this ripoff should continue?
Anyway, Prost!
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
*Hefeweizen
A few sips of beer and my spelling goes out the window ;p
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
There’s no point being fanatical about these things. The only questions that needs to be asked are 1) Is the practice harming consumers? and 2) Will the ruling discourage innovation? If the answer to (1) is yes and (2) is also yes, you have a dilemma. That’s the kind of dilemma you have with generic drugs. In this situation it doesn’t apply. It’s stretching belief to think that no-one would have come up with the idea of downloading songs unless Apple did it.
At this time there is so much potential to make money without being anti-competitive that no government should allow it. This is a non-issue. Go Norway.
Comment by finnsense — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Kristian:
Their prices suck, and they don’t even try to offer prices that resemble market norms.
Yeah, they offer quality wines well below the retail market prices everywhere else. Since the tax cut, single malts cost pretty much the same as in the UK. Plus that you can basically get the same products in Utsjoki as in Helsinki, at the same prices. Can’t say I’m complaining. You’ll need more than a can of beer to sell me your anti-Alko agenda.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
While agree with the ruling in principle, in this case it is completely unnecessary.
Let’s face it: The only reason people buy a ridiculously expensive iPod and not a “generic” mp3 player is that they are lemmings. iPods are cool, gotta have one of those. As long as there’s no technological lock-in, such as the one with Microsoft’s OS monopoly, these two players can play monopoly all they want. Meanwhile, I’ll buy CDs, rip them to ogg files on my Linux desktop and transfer them to my Samsung mp3/ogg player. All using open standards. This is of course criminal in Finland if the CD happens to be “copy protected”. Can’t wait to be arrested for that.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
#33
I’m thinking of a connoisseur in Utsjoki, some late November afternoon, asking the local Siwa whether the Beaujolais Nouveau has arrived yet.
The argument here is the same as with YLE’s “anti-Americanism” (how dare they show unAmerican movies!)
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
but they should be targeting everyone involved and not singling out Apple IMHO
QFT. The real problem isn’t Apple but the RIAA and all the copyright-happy recording companies forcing companies like Apple to distribute DRM laced products. I’m starting to wonder why the RIAA seems to be free to do whatever. Why no one seems to go after it.
Comment by gopha — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Franklin: “Yeah, they offer quality wines well below the retail market prices everywhere else.”
Are you kidding?!!!
You can get pretty good australian Cabernet Sauvignon for about 5e at local gas station mini-markets in central Europe. Same bottle costs about 12e at Alko. It’s really not even a close comparison.
Good quality beer with normal alcohol content is much more expensive here in Finland. You can’t use our supermarket variety as a basis for comparison.
The price difference is due to protectionism. Instead of raising their level-of-quality and selling more beer abroad, finnish beer companies rely on Alko to affix artificially high prices on imports.
And they also take-advantage of Alko’s monopoly status when selling domestic IV beer. What we call IV, is simply ‘regular beer’ in central Europe.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
By the way, you can get reasonably good quality wine for 3.5e at the local supermarket in Germany. That’s what we drink for birthday celebrations at lunchtime.
Under 3e is usually for those who don’t especially care about how it tastes
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Are you kidding?!!!
No, I am not. Have you ever bought quality wines in Finland and elsewhere? Fortunately we have these things called the internets, where you can easily check this out.
You can get pretty good australian Cabernet Sauvignon for about 5e at local gas station mini-markets in central Europe.
Oh, that kind of quality wine. Sure, and you can get 3 litres for, what, 1€ in France. Gets you fucked up just as good as Château Latour 1945.
(I was thinking more of the 20-50€ range)
What we call IV, is simply ‘regular beer’ in central Europe.
This is a matter of personal taste, but the best Czech lagers have an alcohol content well below our III. I don’t really enjoy strong beers at all. If I want to taste booze, I drink vodka.
All this talk of alcohol is threatening my tipaton tammikuu.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
“No, I am not. Have you ever bought quality wines in Finland and elsewhere? Fortunately we have these things called the internets…
Fortunately, I travel back and forth between central Europe and Finland. I bring back beer and wine every time, due to the huge savings—not exaggerating one bit. I rarely go to Alko.
Oh, that kind of quality wine.
As I said, the same 5e wine gotten at central Eurpean mini-markets costs 12e at Alko.
“(I was thinking more of the 20-50€ range)”
Fine. Get it for about 1/3 less in Germany.
“What we call IV, is simply ‘regular beer’ in central Europe.”
“This is a matter of personal taste, but the best Czech lagers have an alcohol content well below our III.”
Both Pilsner Urquell and BudÄ›jovický Budvar (Budweiser) have 5%. So do most others. Content isn’t the issue though; rather, it’s quality. Protectionism allows finnish breweries to avoid raising their standards.
You can get those Czech lagers you like for about 75ct/.5L at gas stations in central Europe. Or for 3e/.5L at Alko.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Fine. Get it for about 1/3 less in Germany.
If that is the case, you can be my personal wine courier.
However, my personal experience contradicts you claim. If you want to get a better deal than Alko in France, for instance, you need to go directly to the producer, and relatively few of them are in the retail business.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Both Pilsner Urquell and Budějovický Budvar (Budweiser) have 5%.
Urquell has 4.4%. Budvar isn’t my favourite Czech. My all-time favourite, BÃ…â„¢ezňák, has 3.8%. (Man, where’s an east European keyboard when you need one?)
We’ll have a great chance of comparing beers in September with Fred.
By the way, we’ll be in New York around St Patrick’s day. What fun it would be to have a pint of black gold with one of the locals (except Pundy, I’m afraid of being sent home hacked into neat cubic inch pieces)
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Kristian, I’ll have to take back my claims somewhat.
Compare, say, Bordeaux wines from Alko and here. The prices are almost exactly the same, give or take a euro or two. Of course, if the Alko monopoly ended, the consumer would lose the economy of scale and quality wines would become more expensive and more difficult to acquire. I’d still miss the convenience as an end consumer.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Kristian being full of shit as always. First, you don’t get any 0.5l beer in Germany for 65c, maybe if you buy a case it is possible. Now, don’t you think it is a wee bit unfair to compare German beer prices in GERMANY and Finland? Check Finnish beer prices in Germany instead. Good luck trying to find Koff porter (or kaura) for example (one of the best porters ever made.
And why don’t Finnish breweries try to sell more beer abroad. Easy question to answer; because they are owned by foreign companies. Finnish beer isn’t poor of quality, selection is.
Comment by PubRose — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 9:13 am
oh, typos…
Comment by PubRose — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 9:14 am
PubRose:
“First, you don’t get any 0.5l beer in Germany for 65c, maybe if you buy a case it is possible.”
I just bought two-cases of Lapin Kulta for 83ct/.5L at Iso Omena. Cheapest I’ve ever seen Finnish beer.
Considering this, why is it so unimaginable that beer costs 65ct/.5L in German supermarkets? I’ve seen it as low as 43ct in eastern Germany.
By the way, there’s no discount for buying cases vs. single bottles in Germany. Strange but true. Singles cost about 3e here in Finland; about 1e at German gas stations.
“Now, don’t you think it is a wee bit unfair to compare German beer prices in GERMANY and Finland?”
Yes, that’s why I used Finnish IV beer as a point-of-comparison in #38. Please follow the conversation.
….because they are owned by foreign companies. Finnish beer isn’t poor of quality, selection is.
Ah yes, the expensive tax system again. All our money goes to the government. Consequently, only foreigners can own Finnish businesses.
“Kristian being full of shit as always.”
And maybe you’re still drinking this morning?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Kristian:
“Why is someone an idiot if they are anti-Alko?”
I’m not saying someone against ALKO monopoly is NECESSARILY an idiot. But many “vocal” anti-ALKOholics seem to be. That is, their arguments usually are rather ridiculous.
In the case of ALKO, we are talking about products, that if they were introduced today, wouldn’t be allowed entry to “the market”. I find it rather strange to see “free-market” hypocrisy used as an argument against ALKO, given the facts.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Kristian:
“I just bought two-cases of Lapin Kulta for 83ct/.5L at Iso Omena. Cheapest I’ve ever seen Finnish beer.”
Is this 1.66e per L? And you have not seen cheaper prices in Finland? Where do you shop? City-Market Itäkeskus sells Koff “mäyräkoira” packs for (I believe I’m almost right) 1,42e per L, ending today. But these kind of prices are common in CM Itäkeskus at least. I don’t think they are unique, since CM “campaign prices” seem to apply in every CM.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Thomas—
Yes, 1.66/L is what I payed for the Lapin Kulta cans. But thanks for the tip about CM Itäkeskus. I’ll look there more often from now on.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Franklin—
I went to Alko today, just to re-orient myself to their selection. As you and Thomas mention, they do have some interesting offerings. If you say they have good price points in the 20e-50e category, then I’ll take your word for it. I only buy at those prices a few times-per-year, so I can’t say much. Plus, I’ve been in a beer drinking mode lately, so my wine knowledge is rusty.
But, when I do drink wine on the average Saturday night, I buy in the 5e range—that’s according to the German price scale, not Finnish! Though it doesn’t compare with your 20e-50e variety, wine for 5e in Germany is actually quite good.
Today at Alko, I bought a Bulgarian wine for 6,60e. Pricewise, that’s near the bottom of Alko’s selection. It has a nice picture on the bottle, description on the back, but no date and a plastic cork.
It’s ok, but I’d place it at around 3,50e on the German price scale. As I mentioned, under 3e is kind of unpleasant. The really cheap stuff in Germany costs around 2,50e for a jug.
According to my survey, a 5e bottle in Germany costs at least 10e at Alko. The vintage would be approx 2004. If I were to buy two-bottles-per week at Alko, I’d overpay 10e each time. That’s 500e/year overpaid.
If that 10e/wk overpayment to Alko were invested instead, it would total 32000e after 20-years at 10% interest.
That’s why I make such a big deal about overpaying, especially when it’s ongoing. So, for now I’ll continue to reap the savings by bringing wine and beer back from Germany
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Kristian:
“As you and Thomas mention, they do have some interesting offerings.”
I do not want to be a bitch, but I rarely visit ALKO, so I couldn’t offer any tips concerning ALKO. I can only say that 1.6e/L for beer is definately not the cheapest price offered in Finland.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
I think Milton Freedmen was wrong regarding his anti-antitrust stance (he was against antitrust regulations). I think many Libertarians disagreed with him on that one.
I doubt it.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
The beer selection in Baltimore compared to the beer selection in Helsinki doesn’t even come close, a lot bigger selection in Baltimore. The wine selection in Baltimore is much bigger than the selection in Helsinki. As well as the liquor selection. Saying that “without Alko, we wouldn’t have selection” is pure bullshit.
And the people in Utsjoki wouldn’t suffer either, in a liberal society people will just very eaisly buy their liquor online and have it sent straight to their door. I doubt the Utsjoki Alko is that big anyways, I reckon most stuff is special ordered there, so little would change for them.
I’m serious when I say this - I can’t come up with one single advantage to Alko. People say they buy in bulk and save, yet everywhere else (France, Germany, states) it’s cheaper. I guess they buy in bulk and save, then tax the fuck out of it. Even if they did save, why doesn’t the state just monopolize everything so we’d get bulk products for everything we buy…and save!! Serious question.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Phil:
The beer selection in Baltimore compared to the beer selection in Helsinki doesn’t even come close, a lot bigger selection in Baltimore.
And I suppose that Maryland’s population, or that of the entire US, is not a factor in this? Try Alaska for a comparison.
And the people in Utsjoki wouldn’t suffer either, in a liberal society people will just very eaisly buy their liquor online and have it sent straight to their door.
And what would the delivery costs be should one like to offer one bottle at a time?
Even if they did save, why doesn’t the state just monopolize everything so we’d get bulk products for everything we buy
That is an interesting concept that has been tried a bit east of Espoo. The results were discouraging. Not that I’ve seen very long queues, or product shortages at Alko.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
order, not offer.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
And I suppose that Maryland’s population, or that of the entire US, is not a factor in this? Try Alaska for a comparison.
I think Baltimore metropolitan area is almost same size as Helsinki, like around 1 million people.
And what would the delivery costs be should one like to offer one bottle at a time?
Order in bulk. Order with friends. And look, when you move up to Utsjoki, you willingly give up a lot of things that we down here in civilization get. A lengthy beer selection near-by may be one of them.
How about this - Alko can keep its doors open, but others are allowed to compete?
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
“How about this - Alko can keep its doors open, but others are allowed to compete?”
Sounds good. Between private distributors and supermarkets, our needs will be covered much better than Alko alone. But, if Alko wants to retain a niche at a certain price point, then I don’t see why it can’t succeed alongside the others. I just don’t want to be forced into their limited price/product categories. It’s really a waste of my money.
And by the way, the fact that we only have 1M or so people in the Helsinki region is irrelevant. Having 5M total in Finland is plenty to reduce transport costs/unit and acheive economies of scale.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
I think Baltimore metropolitan area is almost same size as Helsinki, like around 1 million people.
Plus that DC is a short drive away, Philly is about as far as Tampere, and NYC as far as Jyväskylä.
How about this - Alko can keep its doors open, but others are allowed to compete?
Eventually it will probably be that way. I hope I won’t get screwed as a consumer.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Unfortunately, in Finland, whether government monopoly or private retailer, the seller sets his price according to what an individual would pay if he orders a single unit from abroad. That is, his competitive point is to stay just below marketprice+shipping for a single retail order.
This, despite that the seller’s per-unit shipping cost is much lower due to bulk purchasing. Seems to be the way many things are priced here, not just alcohol.
The only way to counter it, is to enable the market to be flooded with sellers. In the case of alcohol, it’s rather easy: Just enable anyone to bring truckloads of it to Finland for distribution. If retail pricing is set artificially high, then it becomes rather easy for a new entrant distributor or retailer to sell for less, yet still make a profit.
It all relates to the economics concept of Entry Barrier, which also explains things like arguments for-and-against antitrust regulations.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Wow
Comment by BOB — Tue, Oct 23rd, 2007 @ 6:35 pm