What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
299 Comments
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -11/+1435 reasons iTunes/iPod is not a monopoly.
1) The majority of iPod owners DO NOT get their music from iTunes. Do the math. Apple has sold 119 million iPods and 3 billion songs on iTunes. On average, that's 25 songs per iPod. So it's obvious that the majority of people are getting their music elsewhere. Do you know anyone with only 25 songs on their iPod? Yeah, I thought not.
2) You can rip your CDs to play on your iPod. This also happens to be an easy way to circumvent the built-in Fairplay DRM that is sold on iTunes. What does that mean? Imagine buying a CD-RW disk, the kind that can be erased and burned into infinity. Now imagine loading all your songs on that CD-RW and repeatedly ripping those songs into MP3s or AAC. Which brings me to my next point...
3) Your iPod can play open standards like MP3 and AAC! Remember that little company called Napster that raised a ruckus a few years ago? Sure you do, because you probably still have lots of their songs, right along side those other songs you downloaded using other P2P software since the music industry closed them down. Those songs will play on your iPod. And you know what else? Any MP3 you buy from Amazon or Emusic or any other site that sells MP3s will work on your iPod. So how is it that people continue to say that iTunes has an unfair monopoly on content, when it can play and load competing music from other music sites?
4) Guess what, peripheral devices all have proprietary software. Does HP have a monopoly on the scanner market because my HP Scanjet 4370 came with proprietary software? No? Well, why not? Oh, I see, because I need that software for my scanner to communicate with my computer. So, for some reason, it's okay for printers, scanners, web cams and competing DAPs (like the Zune) to have proprietary software, but not the iPod.
5) People misuse the word "monopoly." A monopoly occurs when a company gets exclusive control of supply or trade in a commodity or service. For example, Microsoft had a monopoly because all the competing PC manufacturers decided to enter into exclusive agreements with Microsoft to install Windows on their systems. It had nothing whatsoever to do with consumer choice. 80 percent of Windows is sold directly to PC makers (OEMs). In the beginning, Microsoft even required PC makers to sign exclusive contracts specifying that they would only advertise Windows on their systems. Companies that failed to do so could risk losing their volume discounts on OEM licenses of Windows. Ever wonder how much more your PC would cost if PC makers had to pay retail prices for OEM copies of Windows? Go to your local Best Buy or Circuit City and see how much Vista is selling for.
The iPod on the other hand, has a monopoly because consumers chose it in overwhelming numbers. Apple doesn't have exclusive control over the DAP market because there are any number of competing products that you can buy that will play your MP3s. Now if Apple had exclusive control on content and you HAD to use iTunes, not only for the iPod, but also Sandisk or Zune, then iTunes would have a monopoly. But for reasons I outlined above, that isn't how iTunes works. - anderzole, on 01/05/2008, -19/+63let's hear it for yet another frivolous lawsuit!
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -1/+41So Apple are getting sued for not buying a WMA license?
I'm off to make a new audio codec so I can sue everyone for not buying it of me. - redwallhp, on 01/05/2008, -4/+37Let's see...
1. Apple would need to PAY Microshaft to enable WMA functionality.
2. Apple would have to pay the developers, and spend more time, to develop the ability to play WMAs into the iPod.
3. It's there store, their 'pods. You don't like it, BUY SOMEONE ELSE'S FREAKIN' PRODUCT.
"The complaint goes so far as to allege that Apple has intentionally disabled WMA compatibility in the iPod. The iPod shuffle contains a chip—the SigmalTel STMP3550—that is capable of supporting WMA, but "Apple's crippleware operating system software prevents the iPod Shuffle from playing WMA files," according to the complaint (never mind consistency between products, not to mention licensing and DRM issues). The complaint says that Apple should be able to easily afford to license WMA from Microsoft, which shouldn't exceed $800,000." - Shogi, on 01/05/2008, -1/+22You misunderstand. If everyone chooses to buy an iPod because they like it, there's no monopoly, because consumer choice is not in the realm of Apple's control. Microsoft on the other hand, had a huge grip on which OS was installed on PCs through the contracts that they put manufacturers under, meaning that Microsoft was ACTIVELY preventing other competitors from entering the scene and shaping the market in their favor (if all the manufacturers are contractually obligated to ship pcs with windows, what does the end user buy?).
Perfect example: I myself recently bought an MP3 player, but I decided that I wanted nothing to do with the iPod or iTunes (for various reasons) so I bought another (vastly better, my opinion of course) player. Having an iPod also does not limit you to iTunes. My sister has one and hasn't paid a cent to iTunes for music.
The point is that in Apple's case there are other easily accessible options on the table, whereas with Microsoft that was definitely not the case. - zdlatham, on 01/05/2008, -1/+21the only company requiring itunes to lock songs to ipods is the RIAA. It is the RIAA that requires drm. Without it you can move your songs to any player you wish. I even think apple is contractually obligated to 'fix' itunes everytime it is hacked.
- doctechnical, on 01/05/2008, -10/+27Except it works.
- CraigJ, on 01/05/2008, -3/+19You are a ***** ***** troll. Not that you have a chance of getting laid, but please remove yourself from the gene pool immediately.
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -1/+16You can't read can you, dukeeeey? Consumer choice does not a monopoly make, whether it is your choice or not.
- techmaster, on 01/05/2008, -0/+14You double click the installer icon for Quicktime. Very easy.
- CraigJ, on 01/05/2008, -1/+14"I didn't realize what I was doing when I took 3 months to rip 1500 CD." Surly this is Apple's fault.
- CraigJ, on 01/05/2008, -1/+13Stacie Somers is going to get owned. Count on it.
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -0/+11Could your utter lack of any knowledge on the subject be any more apparent?
- griz, on 01/05/2008, -3/+14The WMA argument is crap. Apple would need to license the ability to play WMA from Microsoft. It's their right not to license that technology unless they see fit. Did this woman sue the record companies and CD player manufacturers because her tapes wouldn't play in her new cd player?
Sure it would be nice if all players and music were compatible, but that isn't going to happen through law suits like this. - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -2/+12As I said in an earlier message - A monopoly is not illegal. Abuse of a monopoly is (this is what MS was convicted of)
Apple does not have a monopoly the the field of MP3 players or music stores anyway. They may be the most popular but you can't say there isn't competition (Amazon's store comes to mind) - a0me, on 01/05/2008, -0/+10Quicktime also exists as a standalone installer.
- CraigJ, on 01/05/2008, -0/+10"You also fail to realize that a monopoly is dictated by the mere suggestion of tie and products" I think you need to look up the definition of monopoly:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Tell me Apple has is no competition in the PMP / Online music business. Market share has nothing to do with monopoly. Proprietary has nothing to do with monopoly. iPod +iTunes could have 100% market share due to consumer choice and not be a monopoly because I can still buy a zune, a zen, etc. I can get my music from the Zune store, raphosody, I can rip CD's etc. This chick is stupid and going to lose big time. I hope for her sake her lawyer is doing this on contingency... actually, on second thought I don't. I'd like to see her spend 10s of thousands of dollars on legal fees and end up filing bankruptcy for being a stupid frivolous lawsuit filing troll looking for a payout. - noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -1/+11Why, aren't Mp3 and AAC already fully open?
- codyman, on 01/05/2008, -4/+13Monopoly = the exclusive possession or control of something
I can go buy a sandisk, samsung, microsoft, etc etc DAP, all with their own respective music stores and compatibilities.
What Microsoft doesn't like is defeat. If you try to push down the king of something, the big guy doesn't want to go done without a fight. This lawsuit calling them a "monopoly" is ridiculous, anyone can make a DAP, but its all about marketing and the iPod has won the hearts of the consumer, and thus the consumer has chosen what they feel is "best". I love the fact that in today's world, you are only allowed to be so successful and if you become too successful, people try to make the government stop you. God forbid a company tries to make a product that sells, maybe Apple should be forced to make crappy products no one wants, maybe then that would teach them a lesson for trying to make a profit! - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -2/+11This is stupid. By the same logic my Volkswagen has a 1.8T engine which PREVENTS my car from running on diesel even though the chassis is perfectly capable of supporting it.
- GregR, on 01/05/2008, -1/+10So, you are saying I can buy a Zune and get it to work on my Mac (OS X or OS 9)?
I think not, so you are arguing against yourself. - colincornaby, on 01/05/2008, -0/+9There are potential submarine patents on Ogg, and a big company like Apple wouldn't want to open themselves up to a massive lawsuit.
- luchid, on 01/05/2008, -0/+9So apple should just flush their R&D money down the toilet? I mean they spent years getting the database and syncronizing issues straight and you're saying they should now give it away for free to other useless corporations who could never figure out who to do things right?
- zip22, on 01/05/2008, -1/+10AAC, WAV, H.264, MPEG-4 are not apple's formats. they are formats that the A3 and the Archos 605 support (some need to be purchased for the archos). Which formats were you talking about being apple proprietary? Apple lossless is, but it is fairly easy to transcode that into another lossless format (and mixed reviews state that the A3 can even play it). AIFF is, but who uses that?
music management with the ipod/itunes system is very straightforward. what issues did you have? - darkecho, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8Ok, I think all these antitrust suits are bull *****. From Microsoft including WMP in Windows to this *****.
"Somers says that because of this limitation, "iPod owners' only option to purchase online music is to purchase from Apple's Music Store."
My iPod has quite a few songs on them none of which were purchased from Apples Music Store. They may have been purchased from other places or cd's.. None from iTunes. - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9monopolies are not illegal. Abuse of a monopoly is and is what Microsoft was convicted of.
- HalBSure, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9If you are talking about AAC being Apple's OWN format, then you are mistaken. Anyone can license it for use on their products. Like the PS3, Wii, PSP, Zune, Zen, and SqueezeBox all have.
If you are complaining about the DRM on the iTunes Store, what's the point? All DRM is bad. - pixeldust, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9Go to http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/ and download it?
- BrownleeJ, on 01/05/2008, -3/+11No one forces you to use Windows either. People choose to use Windows because it is the default, the most popular, has widespread support and software availability, and various other reasons.
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -4/+11No one forces you to buy an iPod. No one forces you to use iTunes, no one forced Apple to take up most of the online music market, provide the largest selection and otherwise make effort to provide good service.
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7Right, what's that have to do with anything. iPods are not the only DAP that work with Macs, or with Windows. This is a format that apple simply has chosen to to pay for. And why should they, why would you have them support a closed format instead of the open ones they support now?
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7They're already doing #1 aren't they?
- diggn_it, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7Yeah, it's called integrating software with hardware, and shockingly that's not illegal. Do some reading, learn the law, and then come back and complain that that making two complementary products is illegal. I like how you said "unrelated" products, like A) that were true, and B) that was somehow legally relevant. First off, anyone saying a piece of music software and a jukebox player are unrelated needs to head straight to the asylum without passing go. Second, apple could be using iTunes to promote their own brand of meat products and it would still be legal as long as they are not forcing people to use their service. Why do you think Hulu can run car commercials? I don't care what people say, fanboys on both sides are idiots, thanks for being the windows example.
- solistus, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7This lawsuit is idiotic. WMA is a CLOSED, PROPRIETARY format. Apple is under no obligation to pay Microsoft so that iPods support this format. Apple supports all major open formats, and provides its own proprietary format to compete with WMA. DRM-laden WMA tracks are far more restrictive than M4P tracks are. Why is nobody suing Microsoft for refusing to offer a free WMA license to Apple?
If I make up a proprietary format and charge $80,000 for a license, can I sue Apple to be forced to support it? - maskedm564, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7I don't even like anything apple, but even I think these people just need to shut the ***** up.
- Shogi, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6That's irrelevant. Even if iTunes is bundled with Quicktime, no one is forcing you to use it. Same way dozens of other companies bundle things together to reach more people. Hardly worthy of a monopoly suit.
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7uTroll
- doctechnical, on 01/05/2008, -4/+10Given that Apple is making money hand over fist selling the iPods just the way they are, and given that the vast majority of customers seem to be tickled pink just the way things are, I don't think Apple "needs" to do a bloody thing.
- unclejimbo88, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5You don't BUY Linux. That's kind of the point.
- noahhoward, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5It wasn't using Windows that was the problem, it was their contracts forcing competition out by ensuring the OEMs were only installing their OS. It was integrating their browser into the OS so you couldn't really do without it.
- Orng, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Apple could use the last paragraph of your comment in court as evidence that it's not a monopoly.
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Well they lost how many billions on XBOX?
- codyman, on 01/05/2008, -1/+6I don't have a single AAC file on my iPod - its all MP3's... the same MP3's that play on my CD players and my car stereo... all of which these devices are not made by Apple.. I don't feel I'm "locked in" to anything
- SugaredJuggler, on 01/05/2008, -2/+7Stacie Somers is just looking for money, should have chosen a smaller company, Apple is going to own her! Serves her right though.
- roberto_deneero, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4You are ignorant. You are not forced to use iTunes or the iPod. End of story.
You just LIKE iTunes and the iPod so much because they are by far the easiest, most enjoyable systems to use. You still have a choice. Stop bitching like a little girl and go use the Zune with that M$ download service....what was it called again? HP scanners only work with HP driver software, so you must go after HP now as well. According to your flawed logic, all peripheral manufacturers have a monopoly over their hardware.
All the way up with a red hot poker. - Speed, on 01/05/2008, -11/+15And if it was Microsoft that made iTunes and the iPod, you'd be all for the lawsuit.
- knightboat, on 01/05/2008, -1/+5Assumptions with no backing don't make for good arguments.
- GregR, on 01/05/2008, -2/+6You are getting dugg down for having incorrect statements such as AAC being proprietary when it's an open format that many other players support.
- solistus, on 01/05/2008, -1/+5First, I didn't miss the point of anything. The article explicitly mentions that the plaintiff wants to force Apple to support WMA. Her argument was that Apple can easily afford the cost of the license. That is the part I was directly responding to. I never claimed to be giving a point-by-point analysis of every argument in the lawsuit.
Second, Apple has done nothing to prevent users from burning and re-ripping. They have no obligation to "comment" on it. You can make all the bets you want; the fact that Apple might clamp down on this behaviour in the future is not evidence of anti-competitive practices now.
Third, the content owners dictated much more restrictive terms to FairPlay when iTunes Music Store started. Apple's only role in the specific restrictions of FairPlay has been to attempt to make them more lax. The fact that those same content owners have chosen to offer more lax agreements to some competitors is, if anything, evidence of shady practices on their parts, not Apple's.
Fourth, do you have any sources on them refusing any reasonable requests by the producers of other players to license FairPlay? I haven't heard of this. Obviously, it's not Apple's responsibility to redesign their competitors' devices for them, any more than it's Microsoft's responsibility to redesign the iPod to support WMAs. Nor is it either company's responsibility to provide access to their proprietary formats free of charge. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that either nobody has asked to license it, or the content owners and not Apple were the ones to veto such a deal. Remember, Apple is not the sole party in the FairPlay standard; they're just middlemen.
Finally, even if you blame Apple 100% for FairPlay's restrictions and ignore the easy workaround, Apple should be under no obligation to open up the format. They never advertised iTunes Music Store as providing DRM-free files. It has always been advertised as a way to get music and video that will play in iTunes and on iPods. If this is not what you are looking for, DON'T BUY THE FAIRPLAY TRACKS! Apple helpfully provides iTunes Plus for users who do not want to deal with FairPlay, and they have lobbied their content owning partners to make more content available in this fashion. BETAMAX movies didn't play on VHS players. Wii games don't play on PS3s. You may claim these are different because of hardware restrictions, but technically, the same is true here; just as in these cases, Apple uses a format that is not supported by other hardware.
At any rate, here's an obvious example: Windows-executable files won't run on other operating systems. If I buy lots of expensive software for Windows, I am effectively 'locked in' and disincentivised from switching OSes. Is this, or should this be illegal? Of course not; I knew the limitations of the products when I bought them. I locked MYSELF into Windows.
Want another painfully obvious one, which is part of the idiocy of this lawsuit? How bout... WMA? WMA is owned by Microsoft, and is just as proprietary as FairPlay. The lawsuit is arguing that it is Apple's responsibility to ensure that competitors' players can run their proprietary format, yet it also claims that it's Apple's responsibility to make sure their player can run their competitors' proprietary format... This is nonsensical. If FairPlay compatibility is grounds for suing Apple, WMA compatibility is grounds for suing MICROSOFT, not Apple again! - Microdot, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4if you actually read the claim, it has more to do with the ipods inability (or crippling) to play other formats than anything else. her main complaint being that the ipod will not play wma (crippled, as the unit is able to decode wma). yet, they failed to realize that by doing so... royalties would have to be paid to microsoft for each ipod sold. the suit is complete and total bs, and will most likely be thrown out as soon as someone with a brain reads it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 299 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is