What is Digg?163 Comments
- dominic2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13How can you have double standards for DVDs? Yes you can unlock DVDs with something like Handbrake but you can also remove iTunes DRM with something like Fairgame. The problem is that they're illegal. DRM is crippling technological innovation and consumer rights.
- bradspry, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21From answers.com: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
The answer to the Apple monopoly question is NO. They license their music from music companies. Music companies make licenses available to other music providers, which there are plenty of examples. - PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22@Berkana:
Your kidding right?
Now if Apple has a monopoly it's a "good" monopoly?
They're still trying to make it impossible to compete with them, that's unfair and in my books that's a "bad" monopoly. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@PueSi:
I'm *not* saying that if it's Apple, it's got to be good. What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction to bust monopolies. The anti-trust laws are meant to protect consumers, not to punish successful businesses. If a business achieves a monopoly *unfairly*, and it hurts the consumer while reaping massive profits, then the law should be applied. This was what happened in historic monopoly cases such as Standard Oil, AT&T, and Microsoft's anti-trust trials. In light of this, let's take a look at Apple's 75% marketshare and the associated market dominance:
1) Have consumers been hurt by Apple's dominance? No. Apple's low price point and continued insistance on 99 cent tracks has forced others to compete with low prices, and the iPod's continued improvements and innovations have led to improvements in other players, though these improvements prove to be little, late, and lame in most cases.
2) Was Apple's dominance arrived at unfairly? No. People who buy iPods do so because they want to; neither the iPod nor iTunes is bundled with windows computers, and the vast majority of iPod users are Windows users, not Mac users. The iPod dominated the DAP market before iTunes Music Store was even launched, so "locking in the user via iTunes" cannot account for the iPod achieving market primacy.
Lastly, is Apple's continued dominance through iTunes music being unplayable in other players a consequence of unjust monopoly? Not unless the SuperNintendo, PlayStation and the PlayStation 2's dominance in their respective generations was a consequence of unjust monopoly. The SNES, and PS1 both dominated their markets by at least as much as the iPod/iTunes platform dominates the digital music market, namely, 75%. The iPod can be likened unto a video game console: it goes without saying that if a person invests in games for a particular console, that investment will keep him using that console, or subequent consoles that are backwards compatible. And vice versa: if you buy a console, you will buy games for that console even if the games are incompatible with other platforms. If this is not wrong or unjust, and is just a part of the market dynamics of platforms, the iPod/iTunes platform is not an unjust consumer-hurting monopoly. And if it is, then the same charge should be applied to the video game market.
In light of this, I don't think it can be said that Apple 1) hurts the consumer, 2) achieved its market dominance unfairly, and therefore, I don't think the anti-trust laws should be applied to Apple, because to do so would neither benefit the consumer, nor be true to the original intent of the anti-trust laws.
***
Pardon my pre-emptive counter-argument delivery: If you contend that not having more players to choose from to play iTunes music 'hurts the consumer', I'd have to disagree; the competing alternative ("Plays for Sure"), which had stores that were cheaper than iTunes (like Yahoo's music store) and far more choices in players failed to prevent the explosive growth in the iPod/iTunes' popularity (and it's not as if you could share iTunes music from iPod to iPod, so the compatibility effect that propelled Window's dominance of the PC OS market doesn't apply.) The single line of players and a single store *benefited* the consumer by offering simplicity. Having more players and music stores adds complexity to the music experience, which annoys the consumer; and as you can see, the consumers have voted with their money and purchases. If they want a competing product that offers the one-player/one-software/one-music-store experience, nothing is stopping them from buying a Zune. The iPod isn't bundled with their PC's, yet PC users are the overwhelming majority of iPod fans. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14All these DRM systems have monopoly issues. That's why there's only open standard format music on my iPod, and why I would never invest in media I can't control (or at least unlock later, as is the case with DVDs). If distributors and copyright owners want to move over to electronic distribution within a reasonable timeframe, they are going to have to give up some control over the usage of the media if they want to maintain control over distribution. Otherwise, alternative distribution methods will persist and grow.
- magicRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Exactly, and nothing's stopping you buying your music the old fashioned way, buying CD's from Walmart etc. Then you can put it on any music player...
- t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14>And exactly HOW OFTEN can I burn CDs with the same song?
As much as you want - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Seriously, why are all the fanboys defending apple? It's not like an open market would hurt them at all. Take a look at the issue and stop assuming that everything apple is wonderful. This is fanboyism at its worst."
And simply calling anyone who defends Apple a 'fanboy' is simpleminded. - Broccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If you dont like the ipod or the way apple does the music store dont use it. Go to walmart and just bu the cd if its the big of an issue. Dont like the fact itunes only works with the ipod. Dont buy an ipod. Also if apple has to make theirs work with anyplayer or DRM then so should ever other mp3 player.
- darkalias, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ Shorties: "FairPlay allows you to play your music on up to five computers at a time (and enjoy unlimited syncing with iPods), burn an unlimited number of individual songs to disc, and burn playlists up to seven times each."
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304674 - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@r3zonance:
Good point. However, there's more to this. Contrast the two approaches:
1) Apple took an enormous risk to make its own music store and its own player hardware, and did the hard work to get all the music industry's major players to agree to sell their music one track at a time (which they vehemently refused to do for fear of loss of profits) at 99 cents a track. Every step along the way was a major investment of time and money and risk. Then, on top of that, they spent a great deal of money promoting and advertising it.
2) Microsoft, in contrast, made all their hardware partners take the enormous risks and make the enormous investments involved in developing a player and promoting it, made all their content providers take the enormous risks and investments involved in developing a music library and preparing a music store and the associated software, and sat back and collected licensing fees for their participation in Plays-for-sure and for using their DRM. This resulted in all profit with no risk for Microsoft. This is how they took the PC OS market and kicked Apple's ass in the 80's; let OEMs take the risks, and collect licensing fees or DOS and Windows. If Microsoft had actively promoted Plays-for-Sure the way they threw their back into promoting the Zune, it might have done better against the iPod. If Microsoft had done a better job coordinating the user experience, they might have done better, but they proved to be greedy and lazy, and wanted to let others take the risks while they taxed them with licensing fees.
Consider the two approaches. Apple may have achieved dominance, but they deserve it, and they're handling it well. They took the risks. Microsoft didn't, and now, they're stabbing their risk taking partners in the back with the Zune because the risks their partners took aren't paying off for Microsoft. - JackAxe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8-vladtepes86
When you buy music from the iTunes Store, its DRM was designed specifically for the iPod. Just like when I buy a game from Nintendo's VC, it will only work on my Wii.
Last I checked, we all have a choice when it comes to where we want to buy music. Did Apple take your choice away... That would be a resounding NO.
Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy music from ITMS. Nor is the iPod confined to just the ITMS for its music. Apple treats all formats equally, wether it be Apple Lossless, ACC, or a WAV just to name a few examples. You can even copy an "AIFF" directly from the CD onto the iPod. All of the music on my iPod, was imported from CDs to the format of my choice.
Apple offers the best software/hardware integration of any music device. This is why they've earned their success. This is needed in order to create a better enviroment for the consumer.
Your comment about how iTunes handles its library, is nothing more than your opinion and obviously it's not the popular one.
When you buy an iPod, it's well stated that iTunes is a part of the bundle, and that it is a requirement. When I bought my Clié, I was required to use SonicStage, a Zune requires that you uses MS's solution. "IF" Apple had a monopoly, which they do not, then MS would not be able to offer the Zune, which attempts to mimic a similar approah to what Apple took.
Apple is not preventing any other company from offering a similar service, nor are they forcing consumers to only buy their products. We all have a choice, and if you don't like Apple, because it's just not cool in your book, then look elsewhere. Don't assume that they must have a monopoly, just because they're the popular choice by non-tech people. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"They're still trying to make it impossible to compete with them, that's unfair and in my books that's a "bad" monopoly."
First off, monopolies ARE legal. But abusing that position IS NOT legal.
iTunes Store has always been a close platform, nobody else has ever been able to sell iTunes/iPod music.
The thing that would make it a bad monopoly is if they closed up the iTunes Store after it had been open. Apple created the market with their closed model already in place, so they have done nothing wrong.
If Apple had gone with a nice open system, got the number one slot and then closed off the system to everyone but Apple, that would be illegal. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If anyone has abused the monopoly position in music, (or more correctly, oligopoly, if I remember correctly) it's the Music industry. Universal bullied MS into paying them a fee for each Zune, and they pressured Steve Jobs for tiered pricing, which Steve fought off, while accusing them of greed.
I think it's good for the consumers to have Apple be a strong player in this market because they've proven themselves to be interested in the consumer's benefit; their dominance is leverage against the music industry's greed. If they weren't dominant, the music industry might have been more influential, or might have been able to withdraw their music from iTMS in response to Steve Jobs' refusal to use their pricing schemes, and thereafter, do the same to all the lesser stores. If Apple didn't stand up for low prices against the pressure from the music industry, I doubt that any of the others would or could have done so. - scarface74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"They are still trying to make it impossible to compete with them"
If you sell music on one of the unencrypted formats -- MP3, unencrypted AAC, AIFF, WAV, or Apple Lossless you can use it on your iPod (i.e. eMusic)
"Video games are way different because the market is open to other companies producing and selling games for people to use on their consoles."
Anybody can produce music that is compatible with the iPod without paying a cent to Apple. To produce a game for a console you must pay thousands of dollars for the SDK and then you must pay the console manufacturer a fee for each unit sold. You do not have to pay Apple to sell a downloadable non-encrypted MP3. Anyone can sell encrypted music through iTunes by going through CDBaby (publisher of independant musicians) and then getting them to sell through iTunes. From what I've heard, independant musicians get around $0.64 for each song sold. As I said above other stores such as eMusic do sell iPod compatible music. The console manufacturers control what types of games are allowed on their systems -- Apple has no such control. - qwisp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Bit torrent has the music market cornered. Not apple.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@davidrools:
Of course iTunes software is needed with the iPod. That's not the kind of bundling I'm talking about: people who get iTunes/iPod choose to buy it (or receive it as a gift). It does not come pre-installed on Windows PCs, which constitute the overwhelming majority of the computers used by iPod users, so it can't be said that the iPod is a locked-down choice. People who get it chose to get it; this choice is never imposed, though it may be perpetuated. I contend that perpetuating the choice is due more to Apple's innovations in each generation of the iPod than in the iTunes music store being exclusive for use with an iPod.
A commenter elsewhere in here mentioned that BitTorrent has the market cornered, not Apple. If this is so, then mathematically speaking, if 75% of the DAPs out there are iPods, and BitTorrent is far more popular than iTunes Music Store, the majority of BitTorrent users who use DAPs must be using iPods. If this is so, then the iTunes lock-out of other players means nothing, because the BitTorrent music pirate doesn't buy an iPod due to being locked in; pirated music isn't locked in to anything, and if a pirate buys an iPod, it is due to the iPod being a better player, which is nothing to penalize Apple for. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Hmmm. Slight problems here.
1. Making other players compatible with iTMS will require licensing agreements to the DRM. If it's freely available, the DRM is useless (see point 3)
2. Making the iPod compatible with other DRMs (PlaysForSure?) will be a large engineering effort, and presents it's own problems... a buggy Microsoft DRM decoder crashing your iPod, anyone?
3. Stripping out the DRM entirely would be nice, but it has the slight problem of infuriating the RIAA by helping "theft" of copyrighted material...
Edit: D'oh... wrong comment replied to! - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Quoted from the article:
"Apple deliberately makes digital music purchased at the Music Store interoperable with its competitors' Digital Music Players." As for specifics, the complaint argues that Apple forces anyone using iTunes to buy an iPod. "After purchasing their digital music library from Apple, these consumers are locked into making all future digital music player purchases from Apple."In other words, if you switch players you lose your digital library."
Wouldn't that make every game console platform a monopolistic (even if no single one dominates the market)? Anyone using Wii games must buy a Wii console, and anyone using the Wii must buy corresponding Wii games. Anyone using XBox 360 games must use an XBox 360 and vice versa. How is this monopolistic? If this is illegal, then the video game console companies should be targeted with such a lawsuit as well. Anyone who has invested in one console platform keeps buying games for the same platform. That's a no brainer, and it's not monopolistic, nor should it be illegal. That's just the nature of platforms. If I'm not mistaken, the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 both dominated their markets as much as the iPod dominates its market (75%); neither PlayStations were inter-operable with games from competing platforms. An interoperable competing platform was tested: Microsoft's "Plays for sure" system. It involved multiple players and music stores. It failed because the iPod/iTunes combo proved to have better merits.
People who buy the iPod buy it because they want to; it's certainly not bundled with their PCs like Internet Explorer. The vast majority of iPod users are not Mac users. This is no different from people buying any particular video game console because they want to; just as the Wii seems to be dominating the current generation of consoles on its innovation and design, the iPod did the same for digital music players. - roberto_deneero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nobody is forcing you to purchase through iTunes. You have options. If you choose (this is key) to purchase from iTunes, then there's nothing wrong with Apple keeping it's distributed content within its own system. You can still get your content elsewhere. This is like me saying I want to buy a Ferrari but take it to Honda for my service contract because it's cheaper for a brake job. This is just another job for the bored lawyers out there to keep their revenues flowing. Yawn.
- scarface74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Similarly, ITMS requires iTunes, which then needs an iPod if you want to take it with you. That "bundling" is much more crippling and leaves a user without alternatives...hence monopoly."
No neither ITunes nor iTMS need an iPod. I downloaded and used iTunes in 2003 when it first came out for Windows. I am a fitness instructor with tons of mixes and I found iTunes (software) to be better suited than the Windows media managers like WinAmp and MusicMatch when it came to organizing MP3's and burning CDs. Also I did not own an iPod until March of 2006 but I was buying singles through iTMS and creating mix CDs from the minute ITunes was available for Windows.
How is iTunes/iPod bundling different from Zune/Zune Marketplace bundling? - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@davidroools
Where did Berkana say that the iPod was better than every other player? He contended (in a remarkably well thought out missive. shades of Perry Mason!) that the iPod was not an illegal monopoly and said why. Instead of countering with "Yeah, but the iPod sucks!", why not try to counter his conclusions? This is the problem I have with many of the posts here in Digg. Instead of an actual discussion, you get crap. - PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11I was going to submit this one.
I think by 2008 people will be able to move their itunes music over to different platforms because of this. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I think a difference is that if I buy a video game it was marketed and designed to run on that game system. If however I buy a song it was not made to play on an iPod it was made to be listened too with no specific device and thus the fact that Apple is forcing you to listen to it on one of their own products is where the monopoly problem occurs."
Wrong, if you buy any music of iTunes Store it was designed to be primarily played on iTunes or iPod. Apple has always forced the listening on their product, and everyone knows that right from the off.
If I buy WMA DRM'd music I can't listen to it on anything but a Windows machine or Microsoft-certified audio device, that wasn't been touted as an illegal monopoly.
How about this for an illegal monopoly. All OEM PC manufacturers that sell Windows-based machines have to charge for a Windows licence in their sale price, regardless of whether they actual ship Windows on it or not, now that IS bad. - eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The complaint argues that Apple insistence on the AAC format while disabling WMA amounts to "crippleware" and is an "illegal tie in violation of antitrust laws."
Oh yeah? Even if they supported WMA on the iPod, it wouldn't play that crap DRM that the other music stores use, so it has no bearing on this case. - zang74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Except, flag, that MS used illegal actions to secure achieve it's dominance. The numerous Anti-trust lawsuits against MS in the past (even recent past) should be enough to show you that.
Apple doesn't charge every MP3 maker a "tax" for selling a DAP, even though it's not an iPod (MS charged PC manufacturers for a copy of Windows on each machine made, whether or not it came with windows on it; thereby pressuring computer makers to figure "what the hell, if it's gonna cost us the same, let's toss windows on there")
Apple doesn't tie iTunes into Windows or Mac OS X in a way that it can't be removed without seriously disabling or completely destroying the OS (as MS did with IE)
Apple hasn't bought out numerous competitors, in an attempt to quash them as competition (as MS did with gawdknowshowmany companies).
Apple hasn't created false errors in the Mac OS that appear when Windows Media files are played; as MS did in 1998 when certain Quicktime file types were played within Windows. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The lawsuit is bogus. Apple has succeeded in the music marketplace because they have an end to end system. Just because its competitors are inept to build better hardware and a comparable software app for downloading music is not Apple's problem. Please research what makes a monopoly before writing crap like this, Farber, Dignan and Berlind.
Apple has been sucessful because people want their product, not because they have no other choice. - endekks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Since the beginning of iTunes and the iPod I have been able to listen to MP3 files. No DRM there. No restrictions on my every day usage. If Apple needs to apply DRM to the music from the ITMS (from whence I get virtually none of my music, since I prefer more difficult to find LPs and CDs which I rip digitally myself) then that is no problem for me. As has been mentioned many times over, DRM is not just an Apple issue, and I hardly see their implementation going beyond the depths that other DRMs have gone. So essentially... What of it?
- eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, he probably would rather you get your music for free. That provides more of an incentive to buy the top-of-the-line iPod (free music == more music == bigger hard drive)
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This lawsuit is like complaining that a CD you bought doesn't work on your LP record player. Besides, if they're going to go after DRM, they could have picked worse schemes to go after.
Where is the Zune Marketplace lawsuit? - ascheinberg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but monopolies are NOT illegal in the US. Anti-competitive behavior is.
The ability to corner a market is the foundation of a free business. If you're best at what you do, you control the market. It's only when you abuse that position by making it hard or difficult for others to enter or succeed in the business that you toe the legal line.
Micosoft is not in violation of the law by having > 90% of desktops, and clearly Apple doesn't have > 90% of music purchases. Microsoft was convinced, however, of freezing out several companies by making it hard for their products to work as well as Microsoft's own.
Apple may or may not have a monopoly, but they certainly have not abused it - you can still burn your AAC encoded files to regular audio CDs and rip them into your format of choice. You can still use mp3 files and un-DRMed m4a files in iTunes. And you're in no way locked into using the iTunes Store for any of your purchases. My house is Mac only - my wife and I both use iTunes - and we've never purchased a song from iTMS.
Anyway, I think it's plain to see that nothing illegal is going on here.
EDIT: that doesn't mean people won't try to sue Apple for this very reason anyway. - lippe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not sure that it is a monopoly that Apple has, it's just a vertical market that it has produced. Of course, vertical markets are wonderful because it all works together. I do think that iPod and Apple should stray away from it's DRM of course though. There is no reason why it should not play WMA [minus that it really isn't a great format]. It is true. I used to use my iRiver and then my iPod. I paid a fortune it seemed at the time for it, but I had to have one. Of course, I had to get another library of music. Expensive. I then got a Zune for Christmas, and I find that I like it quite a bit more. The interface suits me more. I know. It's not a Apple product, but it suits my tastes better. I still again, need to download another library of music. Not that I can't do that by illegal means for free, but it's not legal. I feel this lawsuit is just a well deserved upgrade, or change in the Apple iPod/iTunes relationship with others. Apple, if you see this, I think this would be a large improvement for you.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4koder, david, flag
Are you saying that because Apple is a monopoly in MP3 players that you can't get the same content that is on iTunes anywhere else? Are you saying that because Apple is a monopoly in MP3 players that you can't buy another player and use content provided by music stores that is compatible with your player? The only part of locked down content on the ITMS is actual purchased content from the various copyright holders. Can I play Plays4Sure paid content on any player that it is not compatible with? Can I play Zune Marketplace paid content on any player that it is not compatible with? Now, which DRM (which all sucks, but put the blame where it belongs, the RIAA and MPAA) allows you to easily convert DRMed content to a non-DRM state? Can you do it with any subscription service without enabling the analog hole which most people either won't or can't do?
A true monopoly can only exist in a vacuum with no other choices available or possible. Since there are many other choices in DAPs and Music stores, Apple is not a true monopoly. Apple has around 60-80% of the market depending on whose numbers you believe. that means that 20-40% of the people choosing DAPs are selecting another player, another music store with the same or similar content.
What MS did with IE was different. You could choose another browser, but that browser manf didn't have the same kind of access to system services that MS did. Add in that they made it nearly impossible to run the OS without the IE or remove it without crippling the OS. THAT is what got them in trouble, not just from bundling it.
The nice thing about the current state of DAPs is that you have plenty of choices in both players and content providers. Apple has done nothing to prevent competition. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3WHAT?!?! Flag is trolling? Say it ain't so!
- skribble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The fallacy here is that that the iTunes music store is a service to iPod customers (an entirely optional service too). It's not a way to force people to buy iPods, it assumes you have one. Either way though, you *can* burn the songs to a CD and use the music purchased from iTMS in any way you wish. You can also purchase most songs on iTMS from many other sources. There is no monopoly here, just greedy lawyers, and stupid consumers. Also Apple its quite possible that part of Apple's agreement with the music industry people os to keep the DRM locked up, thus Apple isn't culpable.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Well, given that Steve Jobs fought the music industry to keep prices flat and at 99 cents, and fought just as hard for simple and low pricing for movie downloads, I think he's doing well for a monopoly. (You can't even pay for bus fare with 99 cents; and in some places 99 cents won't even get you an hour of parking.) The danger of monopoly is that the consumer can get hurt if the monopolist settles for mediocrity because he can get away with it, but for a front runner, Apple is doing remarkably well at pleasing the consumer.
Contrast that with another monopoly case: Microsoft. Microsoft's behavior as a monopoly is exactly what you want to prevent: rampant abuse of that status to put others out of business, and shoddy products that didn't have to compete. IE, for example, stagnated for years until FireFox offered it some competition and ate away at its market share. And don't even get me started on Windows. You get the point. If Apple is a monopoly, it sure seems to defy the tendencies of monopolies to settle for mediocrity. - vladtepes86, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think a difference is that if I buy a video game it was marketed and designed to run on that game system. If however I buy a song it was not made to play on an iPod it was made to be listened too with no specific device and thus the fact that Apple is forcing you to listen to it on one of their own products is where the monopoly problem occurs.
If artists and producers want to start selling iLife songs and albums and sell it as that then fine but forcing you to listen to something on and iPod that was meant just to be heard is not right, not to mention the fact that most users of iPods are forced to use the iTunes software because of the ridiculous way the library is maintained (which I see as an effort to get these non-techie people to believe that only apple products work for music) which they obviously have successfully done. - IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is no monopoly, I can still walk into a store and buy a CD, copy to my computer and put it on my iPod or any other player.
I can also buy music from iTunes and burn it on a CD, then play it on any device... Where is the monopoly? - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If BitTorrent does actually overshadow iTunes in music downloads, you could probably show that the majority of BitTorrent music downloaders who use DAPs listen to their music on iPods; this would have to be the case if the iPod has a 75% market share. (For those who don't know: iPods don't just play music purchased from iTunes.)
If this is the case (that BitTorrent users outnumber iTunes Music Store users), then the monopoly argument made in suit quoted by the article just doesn't apply, because the folks who pirate their music while owning an iPod for portable play purchase it for reasons unrelated to the iTunes/iPod vertical integration. Such users would be buying iPods strictly on the merit of the hardware, and that's nothing to punish Apple for.
If I remember correctly, wasn't some study done that showed that most iPod users don't get all their music from iTunes? I think they found that it was a mix of old MP3s and purchased music, with piracy still outstripping legal downloads. - Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple a monopoly?
What about the RIAA?
They are the ones causing all the DRM! - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@davidrools:
I know about the other players, and there are plenty of nice players out there which beat the iPod on various metrics. However, there is more to superiority than the factors you mentioned. Simplicity, and ease of use with the software and store is part of that superiority, and if you take this into account, the iPod *user experience* is easily superior to the other players. On top of that, the iPod consistently wins reviewers awards for being the best choice, and this, I believe, is a major influence that pushes consumers toward the iPod. (Though C|Net endorsed the Creative Zen, and Wired chose a non-iPod as their favorite last year.)
As for no other stores being able to download music to your iPod, this is not true:
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Get_Ready_for_DRM_FREE_2007_Amazon_LimeWire_MySpace_eMusic_Yahoo_Music - Josephtech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4OK I must say I love Apple products but their are thousands of other music players and many ways to get music. they are not a monopoly.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple want to keep things simple, there is only ONE DRM scheme in effect, rather than having to figure out if the file is a subscription, or it has 1 device installations instead of 3, or you can only put it on to 3 machines instead of 5.
I prefer the simplicity of Apple's model, flexible, but only they set the rules. Beats the utter flexibility, at the vendor level, for WMA which is a nightmare. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FTA (a quote from the class action suit):
"Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice and restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets. Apple's CEO Steve Jobs has himself compared Apple's digital music dominance to Microsoft's personal computer operating system dominance."
Here's where I see the problem with this assumption, Apple didn't place "unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products", as they were there right from the start Apple actually would have placed "unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its" BRAND NEW, UNHEARD OF products.
Seeing as that quote will form the basis of their lawsuit, I'd say they are pretty much screwed. The lawyers probably knew that, but as it's a class action, they (the lawyers) have nothing to lose. - raymccrae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Promantarius
Your example does not hold water. There is lots of windows only software that obviously requires you to have windows. There is no music on iTMS that is not also available via any number of alternatives. Point is if (and God forbid) I wanted to run MS Outlook then I need windows, if I want to listen to a U2 album then I have the choice of the format I want to buy it in. - cubeeggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple doesn't want to pay license fees to license a sub-par music compression format.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2geekee said:
"Apple is abusing monopoly power. They create an artificial barrier for competitors to enter the market for portable mp3 players and popular online music through their proprietary DRM scheme."
No argument from me that Apple uses a proprietary DRM. Who forced the DRM? In order to secure content (the reason for having a DAP), Apple and every other DAP maker and legal digital music store (with the content that most people wanted) has to use DRM. Microsoft currently has two DRM schemes going. Both of those are proprietary as well. What is your point?
"They have overwhelming market share in both areas, so there is no real question about their monopoly status. The lawsuit is just like the IE/Windows lawsuit, and should end up with Apple being forced to license their DRM scheme (or let MS go back to writing any kind of OEM contracts they like)"
What is your definition of "overwhelming" marketshare? Depending on whose numbers you believe, Apple has about 60-80% of the current DAP market. There are several other DAP manufacturers, several other music stores, some with DRM and some without. What was Microsoft Windows marketshare at the time the Justice Department and several similar govt orgs in Europe and Asia went after them for monopolistic practices? 90%? 95%? What competition was around with MS when the suits were filed? A very sickly Apple Computer, bleeding money and marketshare. That was about it other than a few much smaller *nix OSes. MS did some very shady things to get that marketshare and got caught. Paid a few hundred million dollars in fines and I doubt they really cared. There was more coming in than was going out.
Many love to think that the 150 Million that MS bought of non-voting Apple shares "saved" Apple. The truth is that Apple even with all its red ink spread out over several years was still very much healthy financially. They had lots of cash in the bank and almost no debt. Where they were sick was in having no direction and nothing of any consequence coming out. MS sold that stock later for quite a nice little profit when Apple's stock started going back up.
What was much more important for Apple than the money was a commitment by MS to continue updating MS Office and IE for the Mac for 5 years (this was recently renewed for another 5 years)
"Why are Apple zealots so opposed to Apple licensing their DRM?"
I'm not opposed to it at all. But it isn't my DRM and as I said earlier, if there is no benefit to Apple to do so, why would or should they? - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So explain it geekee. He brought a definition to the table and you brought nothing. Instead of just saying his argument is nonsense, counter it with something definitive. That's the difference between being a troll and a contributor.
- skellener, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is NO Apple music monopoly.
- You can buy music on CD and on vinyl and not even own a computer
- You can buy music from many, many places online
- You can own an iPod and have never bought music through the iTunes Music store
- You can have bought music from the iTunes Music Store and NOT own an iPod
- iTunes is cross plaform (Mac & PC) which is the majority of OS's used
If Apple opened up the music they sell (kill their DRM) that would be wonderful. But, the fact remains they have no where near a monopoly on music. Their are plenty of other options available. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geekee
I'm sure the RIAA would love for Apple to allow other hardware/software makers to use their DRM. Since that brings no advantage to Apple on either side and it's their intellectual property, why would or should they? Quit being stupid. -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is