Slashdot Mirror
Apple Music Store Coming to Europe & iTunes in China
frankie writes "As reported everywhere, Apple is holding a press conference in London on Tuesday June 15. The entirely un-subtle official sound bite is "the biggest story in music is about to get even bigger", not what we've come to expect from Lord Steve." Or read through the Reuters report. In other news, it appears that Apple has struck a deal with China's second larger computer manufacturer to preinstall iTunes.
Didn't Jobs say that Japan would be the first non-US country to get the iTMS? Or did that change somehow?
But every machine that ships with iTunes, ships with QuickTime.
The big issue, stated time and again, is that Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, so they can't bundle the same things that others can. If Apple were in a monopoly position, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Slashdot crowd would be hollering just as loud as they do against Microsoft (which isn't, incidentally, that loud).
It doesn't have anything to do with the mysterious anti-Microsoft pro-Apple conspiracy. People just like rooting for the underdog, even if the underdog would be just as Evile as the top dog if/when given the chance.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Microsoft has already done this with media player, only they didn't strike up any deals, they just said OK yah this will be on your computers now because it's part of windows. They did the same thing with IE. Only what everyone got pissed off with IE about was the fact that they told people, hey you can have Windows with IE but you can't put netscape on your computers. Otherwise you can't have either. Apple isn't telling any companies to take out media player.
iTunes store may not be accessible but there are over 1 billion people there and iTunes syncs with the ipod so imagine how many ipods they could sell there.
Evolution or ID?
I will be very interested to see how iTMS does in China. That's going into the core of the area where organized piracy has traditionally been the main music and software market.
China has been gaining a large middle class, and a lot of wealth. So, I think there is a big enough potential market that is able to purchase music. We'll see if they are willing to purchase music.
I went to China on a business trip last year, and while walking through an open market in Shanghai I couldn't take five steps without being approached by a kid wanting to sell CD's and DVD's for less than a dollar a piece.
"While I'm sure it's all fine and dandy that Apple is now bringing more capitalism to China"
:)
You're implying that China is communist. It's not truly communist - the country would not have experienced such massive growth in population if it wasn't for western companies investing in textiles factories, etc. in China. China owes a lot to western countries for it's absoloutely massive period of growth after the past fifty years. Considering I just three hours ago wrote a two page essay on it for an A-Level...
Isn't China's "official" OS going to be Linux? If this is the case, it would be hard for all those people on Linux machines to use ITunes
Which begs the question: What will community consensus say if Linux continues on its current trajectory and achieves enough market share to be considered a monopoly in certain markets, like service operating systems? Would the community turn against Linux and root for the underdogs, namely *BSD, Apple, and Microsoft?
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
What I want to know is if they're going to be making all the music in all regions available to all the other regions that have itms available. I would KILL to be able to buy some J-Pop and local rock and folk music from parts of Europe in AAC (yes, I know, .ogg r0x0rz your s0ckz0rz, but AAC is readily available and still high quality). It would be so easy to access tons of new material (especially stuff that you just can't find in Texas, or most other states for that matter), which is one of the secondary purposes of itms (the first, of course, I won't argue is making money).
You know you're commenting on Slashdot when... you have to make several provisos to be sure you're understood.
Cthulu saves... in case he gets hungry later.
::helping geeks get laid since 1983::
The major difference has been past behavior. Microsoft has shown time and time again that they will happily screw over their customers every chance they get to maintain their power and profits. While Apple is also a for-profit corporation, their history has shown from the very, very beginning a different philosophy of "changing the world" and making it a better place (as lofty a goal as that may be).
For instance, while we agree DRM is a Bad Thing, if we accept that it is a prerequisite for successful online distribution of music, which would you rather have? Apple's terms or Microsoft's? Who has fought as much as possible for liberal licensing terms (and not opened their stores without them)? What about Apple fighting royalties on MPEG-4 licensing and not releasing Quicktime 6 until they were settled?
Apple has a much better track record of working with us and for us than Microsoft, and as such they get our support.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
This is the most incredibly capitalist idea that I have ever heard from a reputable manufacturer of computers so far.
Knowing the average wealth of the Chinese population, what in the earth was Apple thinking or what were they smoking up in the Valley when they come up with this brilliant idea I am wondering.
While most people in Chine is on the border of (or may be right in the middle of) poverty in US standarts, what do they expect from this deal. Sell these people digital songs $1-a-pop ?
Hmmm.. I am wondering if I should eat today or shell out my food allowance to download the latest Eminem track ? Hmmmnn... Hard choice, but I'll go with the food.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
You're also not giving a single cent to the artists in any shape or form, instead to some dodgy russian company, may as well just pirate it.
If Microsoft isn't allowed to use its OS monopoly, then Apple shouldn't either.
Apple is cutting independant deals with computer manufacturers based on the quality of its product.
Microsoft is forcing computer manufacturers to ship the Windows Media Player whether they want to or not.
So, no, Microsoft is the only company using the leverage provided by the Windows OS monopoly.
If you like stiffing artists that's your business. I'll stick with a system where at least a little money get's back to the artists I like.
Apart from the ability to select music quality, I don't really see where allofmp3.com is any different than downloading a song from P2P.
As for iTunes "Encumberment" - perhaps you missed out on Hymn?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Do not confuse monopoly and monoculture. Both are bad, for different reasons, but they're not the same.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
How do you figure? Isn't Apple leveraging the enormous popularity of Windows and cheap PC prices (as opposed to Apple hardware prices, which I'm guessing don't fly so well in China) to get iTunes installed on as many Chinese computers as possible?
Your logic is still incredibly faulty.
Hopefully these questions will help clarify the matter:
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Apple will be able to install iTunes on all PCs sold with Windows?
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Microsoft will be able to install WMP on all PCs sold with Windows?
For the record, I am not advocating forcing Microsoft to remove WMP from Windows (I would much rather see them forced to open the codecs). I am just explaining how they are leveraging the OS and why the same argument does not apply to others.
If you can't see the difference you're obviously beyond help.
Apple supports open source and contributes to existing open source projects.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Because Apple can't force your hand by raising prices of Windows licenses if you don't bundle iTunes.
Microsoft can force your hand by raising the price of Windows licenses, or threatening to not sell you Windows licenses, if you bundle a competitor's product. And please note, this has happened to Compaq, BeOS, Netscape, and other companies.
Since when has Apple been able to discourage users from seeking out other media players through legal and contractual means? Microsoft can, through it's monopoly status. Apple can't. Well, they can try, by saying, "If you bundle WMP or Real on your PC, each copy of iTunesPC will cost you $1; if you don't, then iTunesPC will be free."
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft can charge $40 and still get their way, because as a monopoly they can set their own pricing. Apple, as *not* a monopoly, can't set the prices any way they want.
GPL Deconstructed
You really need to study the details of the Microsoft monopoly lawsuit, and study up on antitrust law in general, because it's obvious that you haven't.
Microsoft has a monopoly. That has been proven in a court of law. What has also been proven in a court of law is that they abused this monopoly by using anti-competitive practices to make sure that they were in complete control of what was and wasn't installed on top of Windows by system vendors.
Your argument is the same one that Microsoft used. "Poor, poor users - if we let competitors or OEMs change Windows, the poor users won't get the best, most consistent user experience!" Of course this is question-begging: this argument assumes that Microsoft provides the best, most "consistent" user interface, and there's no evidence to the contrary because no one is allowed to rip out chunks of Windows and replace them with Gecko and VLC etc. or just leave those apps out, because Microsoft will revoke their OEM license.
What an end user can do with one PC to tailor it to their needs is not the issue. What an OEM is being prevented from doing on behalf of all of their customers is the issue.
As for Apple somehow having an iTunes monolpoly, you're confusing PC vendors (none of whom have a monopoly, at least in the US) with Microsoft, and anti-competitive practices with competitive practices. If Apple were able to strongarm all PC vendors into not installing WMP or RealPlayer or WinAmp or MusicMatch (etc. etc.) as a condition of installing iTunes, using an iTunes (or other Apple product) monopoly as leverage, that would be comparable to Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive monopolistic practices. Instead, the news that one PC vendor has chosen to preload iTunes doesn't mean that WMP will not be installed, and doesn't in any way give Apple a monopoly on music apps or denote illegal anticompetitive practices.