Virgin Accuses Apple of Abusing Monopoly

worm eater writes "The Register reports that VirginMega (Virgin Group's online music venture in France) is asking the French antitrust authorities to force Apple to license the FairPlay DRM. If France agrees with Virgin, will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard, or will it be the downfall of the mighty iTunes Music Store?"

Comments

This Raises An Excellent Question

[ackthpt]

If France agrees with Virgin, will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard, or will it be the downfall of the mighty iTunes Music Store?"

This raises and excellent question: Is Apple a:

A) Technology (I.P.) Company
or

B) Hardware Company
or

C) Service Company

Apple started as A & B and has dabbled in C, but IMS is solidy B & C. With their deals with Motorola (iPod tech in phones) and HP (own brand of iPod) they further A & C. If FairPlay becomes the defacto standard this places them squarely in the A camp again, which actually benefits Motorola and HP, among others who make hardware for them. Will Apple ever allow the Mac line to be made outside the company again, as it was in the Jean Louis Gassée days?

While it all looks rosy for Apple, I can plainly see now how both Sony and Microsoft want to plough into this market, so they can get it all wrong, make people mad (ATRAC3? I thought it said 8 Track!) (my mPod has been 0wn3d!) and lose lots of money.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, Apple is C). And, it's very very hard to say they have a 'monopoly' position, especially coming from a RECORD LABEL.

If said RECORD LABEL wants the monopoly to end, they should maybe consider the (literally) hundreds of companies willing to get into the online music distribution business. After all, a RECORD LABEL would have the power to license songs to any other business they choose.

This is absurd. If Apple has a monopoly, it's because the RECORD LABELS gave it to them. This is called playing both sides against the middle.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[proj_2501]

VirginMega is a store, not a record label. Virgin Records isn't actually owned by the Virgin Group. It was sold off to EMI in 92, and V2 Records is now their record label, started in 96 after Branson's non-compete clause expired.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[FatRatBastard]

And, it's very very hard to say they have a 'monopoly' position, especially coming from RECORD LABEL.

VirginMega isn't a record lable. You're confusing Virgin Records, which was sold to EMI a long time ago, with the rest of the Virgin Group.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[jwcorder]

And if MS has a monopoly it's because PC MAKERS gave it to them. Look at what Gates did in the 80s with Windows and what Apple is doing with IMS now. Hmmm...food for thought...

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[mblase]

Will Apple ever allow the Mac line to be made outside the company again, as it was in the Jean Louis Gassée days?

When Apple licensed clones of their computers, it was intended to broaden the MacOS userbase. What happened instead was the MacOS userbase remained the same size, and Apple lost money to the clonemakers. Thus they soon rescinded the licenses and went back to doing what they always did.

Doubtless this is part of the reason Apple's reluctant to license FairPlay. As long as they control both it and the iPod hardware, they can keep the iPod/iTunes experience Insanely Great(TM) and make more money to boot. But until the iPod and iTMS actually reach monopoly levels of domination, licensing FairPlay would just decrease the quality of that experience without increasing Apple's marketshare.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[harlows_monkeys]

When Apple licensed clones of their computers, it was intended to broaden the MacOS userbase. What happened instead was the MacOS userbase remained the same size, and Apple lost money to the clonemakers

Indeed, and the reason for this is that the cloners were very limited in what they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed to design their own motherboards, for example, but rather had to buy them from Apple. The rest of their design had to be approved by Apple.

So it is not surprising they failed to grow the Mac userbase, since Apple would only let them produce machines that were essentially exactly the same as Apple's Macs. One of the cloners (Power Computing, I believe) showed off at trade shows a couple prototypes, including a cool laptop back when Apple didn't have any cool PPC laptops, that would have taken the Mac to new markets, and begged Apple to allow them to sell them, but Apple said no.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[macdaddy]

Will Apple ever allow the Mac line to be made outside the company again, as it was in the Jean Louis Gassée days?

No, they never will. At least they won't if they value their company, their products, their income, and the people who support all that. The Apple clone market was a resounding fuckup. That idiot CEO should be flogged for what he did. He caused an absolute nightmare for support. People didn't call Epson or Umax for tech support. Oh no. They saw the Apple logo and called Apple for support. The Umax and Epson clones were the worst of the lot. At an Apple Service Center I worked at we had racks of dead Epson and Umax clones. They couldn't be fixed. The companies refused to honor the warranties. They were POSs. DayStar and Power Computing did a pretty damned good job of making clones (especially the SMP DayStar boxes) but that still didn't fix the support issue. The Radius machines were also junk. The clone "experiment" was far and away a horrible fuckup that we all should hope never happens again.

And it wasn't Jean that licensed the OS and CHRP platform to the cloners. It was Spindler.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[Hatta]

Apple started as A & B and has dabbled in C, but IMS is solidy B & C.

Dunno, FairPlay seems more like S&M to me.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[Bones3D_mac]

Actually, the major problem was that the clone makers (particularly PowerComputing) were starting to produce better hardware at lower prices than Apple could offer. Everyone jumped ship from Apple to PowerComputing due to the lower prices and higher-quality hardware.

To this day, I still regard the Power Tower Pro as the best Mac ever produced.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[allgood2]

When Apple licensed clones of their computers, it was intended to broaden the MacOS userbase. What happened instead was the MacOS userbase remained the same size, and Apple lost money to the clonemakers. Thus they soon rescinded the licenses and went back to doing what they always did.

I don't disagree with this statement. But I've started to feel that Apple IS missing an opportunity here. I see the question as two-fold: "Will licensing Fairplay lessen Apple's current dominance in the Music market? and Will licensing Fairplay seal AAC and Fairplay as the format and DRM standards for the current music wars?

I don't believe that licensing Fairplay would lessen Apple's current dominance that much. The Mac OS license issue was a different ballgame. It seemed everyone but the high paid business people all agreed that it would sucker punch Apple sales. More importantly, it sucker punched hardware sales which are Apple's bread and butter. Unless you own the market or are a smalltime vendor there just is much money to be made in OS sales.

But for iTMS the hardware is the iPod, and licensing Fairplay will ensure the iPods dominance as a MP3 player for years. I see this as a good thing. People will still use iTunes and iTMS because of the ease of use and tight integration with the iPod. Those who won't probably aren't using iTMS currently, but also DON'T have an iPod. If they purchased an iPod, the likelihood is that they would eventually start purchasing from iTMS. It means Apple has to keep on its toes about the music store features, functions, and all around user experience, but the iPod would dominate for at least another 2-5yrs.

While this first issue is VERY IMPORTANT. I think the second question is JUST AS, if not MORE SO important for Apple, especially at this juncture.

Will licensing Fairplay seal AAC and Fairplay as the format and DRM standards for the current music wars?

Licensing Fairplay before Microsoft hits the music scene would be good for Apple, because currently a lot of people are looking for Microsoft and businesses using Microsoft technologies to save them from Apple. Who knows what the likelihood of success of a Microsoft music store would be? I don't. But I can say, that even if it failed completely (less likely), it still gives Microsoft the ability to promote Windows Media DRM as the de-facto delivery standard, which does nothing but contribute to the future decline of iPod sales.

Imagine if RealNetworks, Napster, and OD2 started offering iPod compatible offerings. That would push iPod sales. But also satisfy a number of people's needs for compatibility. Many of those people who want Apple to support WMV would just shut-up, because they don't care about wmv, they care about playing their music on their mp3 player. (It wouldn't satisfy the .oog user, but...)

I think the time is coming for Apple to license Fairplay. I don't want .wmv to the DRM standard, and it has the potential.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[BasilBrush]

Who told you Linux has overtaken Macs on the desktop? It must have been someone pulling numbers from where the sun doesn't shine. If it were true, Google would be seeing more than 1% Linux hits or less than 3% Mac hits.

You are wrong on your other two points too. iPod isn't what I'd call a niche, and record stores still sell orders of magnitude more than online music sites.

Am I missing something?

[r_glen]

...will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard

How exactly would this be a blessing in disguise? Wouldn't it just open the door to more iTunes-compatible players to compete with? Or does Apple stand to make a pretty penny by licensing FairPlay to the world?

Re:Am I missing something?

[2nd Post!]

Well, it depends on where the market lies...

Is it in players?
Is it in content?
Is it in distribution?

See, with players they're already licensing the iPod to HP and Motorola.
In content they already have indies as well as major bands.
In distribution they have iTMS for Windows, Mac, and soon Motorola.

If they license Fairplay, that means other people's content is allowed on the network; it also means other people can create their own networks, and it means other people can create their own players!

However if Apple licenses FP in such a way to generate network effects... I would expect Apple to license FP for other players, and maintain control over content and distribution!

Re:Am I missing something?

[demonic-halo]

Seems like everyone keeps ranting on how "Real Networks hacking DRM" is good for apple, or how apple should open source their DRM, or how they should licence the technology to competitors.

To me it looks like they're making money, and maybe people should stop ranting about what Apple should do and look at what's working.

Re:Am I missing something?

[wulfhound]

Players will be a profitless commodity within two years (as soon as 2GB flash chips are cheap and readily available, you can forget about the engineering challenges that shoehorning an HD in to a small, elegant box brings). Whether or not there is any money to be made from the other two depends on whether or not the DRM model wins out against both genuinely-free and illegaly-copied music.

Re:Am I missing something?

[proj_2501]

apple might be having some trepidation about cloning.

jobs is probably very aware that mac clones nearly killed apple. that's why he killed them when he was brought back on board.

however, with the iPod having lots more share of its market than the macintosh, i think apple has less to worry about if they can get a decent sum from fairplay.

if they can't make a lot of money by licensing fairplay, they do have a lot to lose. itms won't be selling to ipods exclusively anymore, and itms doesn't have the same high margin as the ipod.

Re:Am I missing something?

[2nd Post!]

And isn't that the point in licensing it for other players? Get revenue in licensing and network effects, while minimising manufacturing costs?

Re:Am I missing something?

[Lord Kano]

Or does Apple stand to make a pretty penny by licensing FairPlay to the world?

Think back about two decades. Apple had come cool tech and wanted to keep it all for themselves. Microsoft had recently acquired some tech that wasn't nearly as cool or groundbreaking as Apple's BUT they let the other children play with it.

Look at where those two companies are today. Both are going strong, but the one who shared with the other children is in a much stronger position.

LK

Re:Am I missing something?

[Compenguin]

Apple doesn't have a horizontal monopoly but iTMS + iPod could be considered a vertical monopoly (also known as vertical integration). It's kind of like if Ford bought an oil company and then stipulated that all new Ford Cars could only use free gasoline or ford gasoline, and Ford gasoline could only be used in Ford approved engines. They wouldn't have a monopoly on cars or gasoline but they would be unfairly leveraging a vertical monopoly.

Re:Am I missing something?

[pgrst]

Why will players be profitless?

Right now there is plenty of competition in the player market. Many players have the same storage capacities as the Ipod, and are cheaper than the ipod.

The storage of the ipod has nothing to do with the profits!

The design of the ipod (and itunes) has everything to do with the profits.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Lord_Dweomer]

And what about when portable video players become popular and suddenly 2GB is worth about as much as a 128mb mp3 player?

Re:Am I missing something?

[Moofie]

In this particular instance of "vertical monopoly", there are DOZENS of other music players and online music stores. How does this particular monopoly infringe consumer choice?

I'm an iPod owner, and that hasn't infringed my choice to tell all the online music vendors to go screw.

Virgin's making a money-grab. Apple is not a monopoly in any meaningful sense of the term (except for the fact that they seem to be the only firm employing good industrial designers).

Re:Am I missing something?

[abhikhurana]

Well, it has always been and will always be players... I chatted with the MTV CEO about why they don't enter the music distribution business, considering that they already have the relationships in place. And then he brought me down to earth. How much do you think does apple earn from selling one song? About 20-30 cents. The rest goes to music companies and artists. So how many songs do you have to sell in order to make 50 million dollars, an amount which is fairly trivial actually for these companies. The answer is around 250 million... so there is no way that a company can make a lot of money here.. in fact apple pissed off a lot of people by carging 99 cents per song, because they set the industry standard, which no one can deviate from now.

Holy!

[darth_MALL]

Virgins!?! Apples!?!? It's all sounding very biblical to me. Leave it up to the Big Man to decide.

IE-only shoppe

[jez9999]

Le navigateur que vous utlisez ne vous permet de surfer sur ce site.
Pour surfer sur ce site nous vous recommandons d'utiliser Internet Explorer comme navigateur.

Looks like they don't want you using anything but IE to access their rather shitty site. Going in with IE, I can tell you it doesn't seem like there are any Windows-only features there that would justify not accepting other browsers; just doubtless lazy web design. Good example of a site to quote when somebody asks you for a major site that is incompatible with non-IE browsers.

Re:IE-only shoppe

[armyofone]

"Just use the User-Agent Switcher, works for me."

Terrible advice IMHO. The more that other browsers identify as IE, the less likely these lazy designers will ever catch a clue. Do the world a favor and send them an e-mail explaining why you won't be back instead. It might not get through to them, but acquiescing definitely won't.

Just my 40% of a nickel...

Re:IE-only shoppe

[oliverthered]

I like to send in replies to job applications telling them how there curent site is badly designed, refering them to standards,
accessability documentation &co and asking them to make sure that anyone they hire has xyz skills (e.g. CSS).

I try not to mention things like 'firefox' or 'linux' in these emails unless it is a particular problem, just industry standards.

Re:IE-only shoppe

[Yaztromo]

The site apparently isn't Windows only -- on a Mac running FireFox and Safari, I get:

Pour surfer sur ce site depuis un Mac vous devez utiliser Internet Explorer 5.2 et supérieur, comme navigateur.

IE has to be one of the absolute worst browsers available for Mac OS X. It's slow, looks terrible, and was the very first thing I deleted from my PowerBook.

The truly galling part is they recommend I use IE 5.2 or better. And I am -- FireFox is better.

So let me get this straight. They don't support Apple Mac OS X users using the default OS X browser (Safari), but they want access to Apple's DRM technology Apple originally created to service the same people who use OS X and Safari. Uh-huh.

Methinks VirginMega needs to fix their own support for Apple before they worry about Apple supporting them.

Yaz.

iPod needs WMA

[MysticalMatt517]

Truthfully I don't see the need for Apple to license their FairPlay technology as much as I see the iPod needing to support WMA. Apple has already stated that they don't make money off iTMS, but off iPod sales generated from iTMS interest. Consequently making the iPod able to play just about anything would help further increase their gravy. Most people will still end up using iTMS anyway.

Re:iPod needs WMA

[weez75]

Supporting WMA isn't in Apple's best interest. Controlling the format means controlling royalties. If Apple licenses FairPlay they make money from those who use it. If Apple supports WMA then they make money only on iPods and not their intellectual capital that is FairPlay. You suggest supporting WMA will sell more iPods which I counter because WMA doesn't really help sell any music devices today. The standard is MP3 which the iPod already supports.

Re:iPod needs WMA

[Neophytus]

... apart from being the format of choice in almost every other online music store.

Re:iPod needs WMA

[Yaztromo]

Now what benifit would Apple see by helping Microsoft gain total dominance in the music format wars?

We're in the very fortunate position right now where the dominant music format has no digital rights management built into it (MP3), and where Apple's own format has fairly low restriction DRM built into it, and where there are other formats (ATRAC3, WMA) in competition.

But give Microsoft too much sway by making their format the ubequitous one and they'll be the ones in control. And we've already seen what sort of control they like to leverage given the opportunity -- just look at what happened once Windows became a defacto standard.

Sorry, but supporting WMA would be a terrible idea for Apple and for consumers. I applaud them from staying away from it.

Now if only my iPod would play Ogg Vorbis...

Yaz.

Re:iPod needs WMA

[Yaztromo]

iTunes is able to import WMA songs and convert them to your format of choice

Slight correction: iTunes is able to transcode WMA on Windows. iTunes on Mac OS X has no such capability.

Yaz.

Heh

[Anonymous Crowhead]

- Plateforme Windows (98 SE et supérieur)

Wouldn't this be good for users too?

[rokzy]

isn't Apple's DRM the sensible one apart from being WinXP/2000 (and Macs) only?

What is Apple dominant in?

[SuperKendall]

Virgin claims that Apple is abusing a "dominant" position by not licensing its own DRM.

But "dominant" is not really applcable yet. Are they dominant in music sales overall? No way. Are they dominant in being able to play music you buy online? Not even that is true, since the percentage of PC's is so much larger than Macs.

Perhaps at some distant point, when online music sales erally exceed physical CD sales (if ever?) then Apple might be called "dominant". In this case it's like a black hole calling the kettle black.

There is even an out if they REALLY want to sell music that can play on an iPod - MP3. Just because that format lacks technological features they would like, does that really give them cause to proclaim Apple is a monopoly that should be forced to share?

It will be interesting to see what the courts make of it.

Re:What is Apple dominant in?

[ElForesto]

You're right on track. If I start a company in a new industry and instantly get 100% market share, does that give new entrants the right to sue me for not licensing my technology? Hell no! Virgin doesn't quite seem to get that just because Apple is the most popular, it hasn't done anything really nasty/illegal to be there.

Sounds like Virgin doesn't really want to compete in this market. It just wants a big chunk of it handed to them.

Re:What is Apple dominant in?

[afidel]

I don't know French law but under US law you have to abuse a monopoly position in order to get your wrist slapped (see Microsoft), simply having a monopoly does not place any burden on you. Natural monopolies are not a bad thing, if you have a superior product and the market naturally flows most of the business your way then you have been a good capatalist and produced a superior product at a price point that most of the market will bear.

Re:What is Apple dominant in?

[Durandal64]

What's stopping other stores from selling their music in MP3 format? That plays on iPods just fine. Oh, the record labels won't license unless you use DRM? Well I don't really see how the record labels' policy is Apple's problem.

Re:What is Apple dominant in?

[Forbman]

...but this is in France.

My guess would be that Apple simply stops iTMS in France. In spanish, I think the phrase would be something like "come mierda".

Re:What is Apple dominant in?

[coenbros]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Apple is not only dominant, but has a monopoly in the music download market. According to U.S. antitrust law, it is not illegal to gain a monopoly in a market segment if you do it through legitimate market forces, such as selling a really good product that the public really wants to buy. But once you are a monopoly in that market segment, you cannot use the power you now have as a monopoly to exert undue influence in other market segments. This was the crux of the antitrust suite against Microsoft. The findings of fact determined that they were a monopoly in operating systems, and that was OK. But they used the monopoly power to exert illegal influence in the web browser market (Doesn't that seem like such ancient history now?).

So, by my argument, where has Apple done anything illegal by not licensing Fairplay? Of course, French and/or EU antitrust law may have more restrictive definitions. Apple's stance may also backfire on them in the end, but that would be another example of market forces making the determination.

Make it the standard

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

because PlayFair already cracked it and will allow us to unlock what we've purchased. The main site's taken down, but you can just google "playfair-0.5.0" or the like.

Or just burn to CD and re-encode, but who wants to waste cd's and time doing that?

There are also already plugins for Winamp that will play both .m4a as well as .m4p files (as long as you have iTunes installed)

Re:Make it the standard

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

I think you meant to say: HYMN.

Re:Make it the standard

[rokzy]

couldn't you burn to a virtual CD drive (.iso) and rip back?

semi-OT: I got rid of my (legal) mp3s recently cos all they did was make backups a pain and I like to encode in FLAC via Grip now, and play back with XMMS and CrossFade. Having all my CDs as mp3 seemed great until I realised I really only listen to a couple on a regular basis.

Re:Make it the standard

[johnny_sas]

"but who wants to waste cd's and time doing that"

YOu can just use CDRWs

What do they whine for?

[Kosi]

If they sold normal MP3 or AAC files, they would play perfectly on the iPod, and the customers were more pleased. So their claim that they could not sell songs "for the iPod" is absolutely ridiculous!

Re:What do they whine for?

[Heywood Yabuzof]

Well, that's not really Apple's problem, is it? That's something Virgin and the RIAA need to figure out.

Apple figured out a fairly good way to get a compromise between easy online purchase and satisfying the RIAA. Why should other online stores benefit from all the work Apple did to figure that out? Apple is under no obligation to let competitors take advantage of the deals Apple made with the RIAA.

Re:What do they whine for?

[jfengel]

From which point you look at it, their claims are simply insane and ridiculous!

In general, when you find yourself saying this, you may need to reconsider the issue. They may be fools, but it's more likely that they have a different, potentially valid, opinion on something. If you think they're stupid, odds are good that they may have a point you have missed.

In this case, Virgin (the record store) and Virgin (the record label) are different companies; the record label was spun off some years ago.

Even besides that, it is still in the interests of Virgin (the record store) to sell DRM content. They wish to sell stuff to you, and to each of your friends. They believe that the best way to do that is to prevent you from giving it away to your friends for free. Thus, DRM.

They may be wrong that DRM is necessary, and it may even be detrimental, but it's not ludicrous to think that some sort of mechanism of limiting copying would increase their profits over allow you to give it away to all of your friends, or the entire world, for free.

Unfortunately for them, they don't have the DRM that can play on iPods. What they want from Apple is to "open" the DRM in the sense of allowing Virgin (the record store) to encode music so that they can sell to iPod owners. That would allow Virgin (the record store) to sell music from their suppliers (including, but not limited to, Virgin [the record label]) to iPod owners.

Thing is, that may be best for Apple, too, since Apple makes next to nothing on the music they sell; the whole thing is a ploy to sell iPods. If Virgin could sell to iPod owners, that makes iPods more valuable, which means more profit for Apple.

I'm not sure what Apple's strategy is, but I assume they have one. It may be "brand unity"; they like to own the entire process, just like they are the only vendor of Mac computers for the MacOS operating system.

But I doubt Virgin-the-record-store would find it profitable to sell DRM-less music, even if they did own Virgin-the-record-label (and even though they receive less of the sale than the record labels do). They don't wish to break Apple's DRM; they want to get in on it.

It might not change much...

[brainstyle]

...at least for now. Unless Virgin can offer a music buying experience that works as seamlessly with the iPod as Apple's - since it's clear that they're trying to sell their tunes to iPod owners - then they'll still be missing the point. I suspect what most people dig most about the iTunes store is integration and ease of use. They aren't terribly concerned about file formats and rights managements schemes. Sure, some are - plenty here on Slashdot, for instance - but I doubt the average person is too concerned by that.

Plus, Apple's the cool music company right now. I just saw someone on the street this morning walking with her nice custom-made iPod purse which still clearly had an Apple logo on it, so you knew it was an iPod in there, and that she dug Apple. I suspect she'd use the iTunes store (except I'm in Canada, alas).

But then, I may be underestimating the tech literacy of the average person. I'd be glad if that were the case.

Pay?!?

[eviltypeguy]

Burns: Excellent! My secret plan to "reluctantly" license FairPlay DRM is coming along quite nicely, don't you think Smithers?

Smithers: But sir, won't we lose our exclusivity?

Burns: Smithers, you bumbling idiot. They may be able to license our DRM, but they'll pay, ooohh, yes, they'll pay...

Bad thing.

[ActionPlant]

In the earlier days of the iTunes music store, Apple itself reported very meager earnings indeed. It's long been Apple's policy to charge less for software and more for hardware; if this were to happen, sure, the resulting surge in sales would probably be high, but would iPod sales take a hit? Who knows. It seemed to me that Apple introduced iTunes and the music store on both Apple and PC platforms in order to help drive up iPod sales, from which it makes a tidy bundle. It may be pure speculation, but one could probably assume that doing this would probably hurt iPod sales, and the company in the process.

hm...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

methinks Virgin needs to go look up the definition of a monopoly: "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service."

There are a dozen online music stores. There are several dozens of portable music players. There are a half-dozen DRM solutions. Apple does not have anything even closely resembling a monopoly in any of these areas.

If, if, if....

[Anubis350]

Apple doesnt make (much) money on itunes anyway, its a way of selling iPods. That being so I'v never understood why they've not licenses their FairPlay DRM. The only reason I've ever been able to think of is that they're afraid that if they do, someone will make abetter iPod. However, thats why the free market exists. More competition will make the iPod better because Apple will have to compete more; and if the iPod stays good people will continue to buy iPods no matter where they get their music.

final opinion, this could be a blessing for apple if they welcome it, or a curse if they dig in their heels.
--Aaron

Apple caves

[Elwood P Dowd]

submits to licensing FairPlay decoder for $400 per device and the encoder for $2,000,000 per song.

Seriously, though, what's preventing Virgin from selling songs that play on an iPod? The copyright holders. Is that Apple's fault?

...translation

[morcheeba]

so, they're saying some monopolies are good because it lets their webmonkeys design for only one platform?

Oh, the irony

[Weaselmancer]

...of a music company accusing anyone of being an unfair monopoly. And, just to double your irony goodness...accusing Apple.

I would be in favour of this if ...

[for_usenet]

I would be in favour of Apple being "forced" to open up their DRM, if it meant that EVERY DRM scheme had to be opened up and cross-liscensed (it's all about setting a precedent). I know that no-DRM is better than the lightest available DRM, but since "no-DRM" is very unlikely, then the next best thing is "wildly" cross-liscensing EVERYTHING. For example, I would not mind having MS forced to also open up their DRM scheme, if Apple is now forced to do so.

Labels suck

[The Lost Supertone]

We all know Apple has been screwed by the labels ever since this started. That's why the iTMS wasn't able to launch until after a bunch of other stores in different companies because the labels didn't want Apple to have the dominant position they deserve for being the first with the good idea and good marketing. This is probably also the reason why we STILL don't have the iTMS in Canada! Oh and for the record, if you're going to abbreviate it, the i is ALWAYS lower case, and everyone does it iTMS not IMS not anything else, and don't act like iTunes is only for selling music, I've been using iTunes since version 1, and the music store came in at version 4.

No abuse, only the M$ does.

[TheM$Man]

Apple did not abuse monopoly because they are not the M$. Only the M$ abuses monopoly! Why you ask? Because M$ is bad. Every company could do what the M% does but only when the M$ does it shall it be bad. Therefore Apple did not abuse anything, only the M$ did. Thank you.

Bur Apple doesn't *own* FairPlay!

[sh00z]

The article ignores the fact that Apple has licensed FairPlay from Veridisc. It was not created in-house. Now, they may have negotiated themselves an exclusive license for some period of time, and more power to 'em, but this is NOT "Apple imposing an Apple-proprietary standard" as some would have us believe.

Re:Bur Apple doesn't *own* FairPlay!

[Altus]

wow... that is interesting... I wish I had mod point for you but it looks like other will take care of that.

Im very intersted in this. It seems odd that people would keep bitching at apple to open their standard when it isnt even theirs to open... you would think that one of these companies would have noticed that by now.

Re:Bur Apple doesn't *own* FairPlay!

[MoneyT]

VeriDisc used to have a list of the people that used their technology and Apple wasn't on that list, so I'm inclined to think it's the later.

Re:Bur Apple doesn't *own* FairPlay!

[thatguywhoiam]

The article ignores the fact that Apple has licensed FairPlay from Veridisc [64.244.235.240]. It was not created in-house. Now, they may have negotiated themselves an exclusive license for some period of time, and more power to 'em, but this is NOT "Apple imposing an Apple-proprietary standard" as some would have us believe.

T'would be an excellent point, sir, were it only true.

VeriDisc's FairPlay and Apple's FairPlay are not the same thing. Apple's version was indeed developed in-house, as a custom QuickTime-compatible DRM wrapper.

Why do you think Real is browbeating Apple these days over 'opening' the iPod, when they could have otherwise just gone to VeriDisc and bought a license?

Re:Apple monopolizes

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Branson is no longer CEO of Virgin Records, he sold it.

2. The question is not if Apple is a monopoly in any other market it participates in, but if it is a monopoly in the relevant market of selling music online and providing a player to play the music and if it is abusing its market share.

3. Just because you like Apple, something I can really understand, does not mean that they are acting the way they should in a market where they have an unusal big market share.

4. When it comes to anything else having to do with computers you as a Apple user (assuming you are one) would probably care a lot about open standards, why make an exeption when it comes to online music stores?

Scope is way too narrow...

[sockonafish]

Apple has just as much as a monopoly on FairPlay as Nike has on Air Jordans. That is, they have a monopoly on a product, not a monopoly on the music player/music store market. By revenue, Apple has a 55 percent market share for mp3 players. By units, only 31 percent. I don't know how much of a market share iTunes has, but FairPlay songs are only able to be played on 31 percent of mp3 players. Good luck crying monopoly in court on a company whose market share isn't even close to a majority.

They do have competitors, and those competitors are obliged to compete. If they can't, tough.

Re:SJ is kind of a hypocrite

[Deviate_X]

He is nota hypocrite. He is a businessman.

Its good for apples business to keep fairplay locked away.

It's obvious

[hawkbug]

It's a blessing, and here's why. Earlier in the year Jobs said Apple makes no money off songs sold on iTunes, correct? Well, if he was telling the truth, Apple stands only to make money with the iPod sales. In which case, other online music stores selling music that works with the iPod could only benefit Apple. Unless somebody comes out with a device that holds as much as the iPod that also plays those type of files....

Re:It's obvious

[Masker]

Actually, in the last quarter, the iTMS did post a small profit.

Also, the point isn't that FairPlay is driving sales of the iPod, but that Apple controls the total user experience of the iPod. It controls:

1) The UI & hardware of the iPod
2) The loading of music, playlist creation, etc. on the computer you use to interface with the iPod via iTunes
3) The online purchasing of music for use on your iPod

Apple, as they usually do, wants to have total control over all of those factors. It's the same damned thing they do with their OS & Hardware combo and their retail experience. They want to control everything, not because they're control freaks, but because "if you want it done right, do it yourself".

This Is Nuts.

[MBCook]

This is nuts. First of all Apple is not a monopoly, their player is just head and shoulder above everyone else. As for the argument they are preventing competition by not licensing FairPlay there are two points. First is that there are tons of other players on the market and if you include all the flash players sold over the years the iPod isn't the majority of sales (I don't think). Second of all they CAN SELL MUSIC FOR THE iPOD. They have to use this magical format that the iPod plays. What was it called? MP3. They can sell MP3s. You can't force Apple to open it's product because they don't want to use the dominant format on the market to sell their music.

Virgin is just plain wrong. Forcing Apple to open FairPlay would be a miscarige of justice, there is no good reason to do it other than to stick it to Apple because other companies are mad they aren't as successfull.

Re:This Is Nuts.

[SilentChris]

Virgin Manager: "Say Bill, I see those iPod things everywhere. I want us to get music onto them."
Virgin Tech Guy: "We can't do that sir."
Virgin Manager: "Why not?"
Virgin Tech Guy: "The only protected format that runs on them is Apple's Fairplay AAC."
Virgin Manager: "I thought they were MP3 players".
Virgin Tech Guy: "If we sell MP3's, people can copy them wherever they like".
Virgin Manager: "Screw that. Apple's format is the only protected one on iPod?"
Virgin Tech Guy: "Yup."
Virgin Manager: "So they have a monopoly on a protection standard for the #1 hardware. Where are the lawyers?"

Re:This Is Nuts.

[SuiteSisterMary]

Can I buy a portable player that isn't an iPod that can play the DRM'd iTunes AAC files?

No?

Well, then, sounds like they're using their strength in one market to sell product in another.

Re:This Is Nuts.

[nzkbuk]

The real question is can you buy a portable player that isn't an iPod that can play AAC files (drm'd or not)?

Re:This Is Nuts.

[n8_f]

So? Unless a company has a monopoly and is abusing its monopoly in one market to increase its share in another market, it is irrelevant. Neither iTMS nor the iPod are monopolies in their respective markets (they are dominant, but that isn't the same), so what is the problem? By your logic, you would force Apple to port OS X to PCs, because they are using their OS to force people to buy Macs. "Is there another computer that can run OS X? Well, then, sounds like they're using their strength in one market to sell product in another." Except, in neither case do they have monopolies. This happens all the time. A Sony digital camera will require a Sony battery and a Sony memory card (MemoryStick). If you don't like it, buy something else. They don't have a monopoly, so there is plenty of competition. Apple is free to integrate their products as much as they like as long as their aren't abusing a monopoly to stifle competition.

That is the consumer's protection in a healthy market. If a company ties a product to proprietary components that provide no advantage to the consumer and cost the same or more, then the consumer will choose another product that uses standard components. If, however, the proprietary components provide a marked advantage to the product over more generic components, consumers will choose that product. Why punish an innovative company for using a better component by nullifying that advantage? If you do that, companies will stop developing better ways of doing things, because as soon as they come up with one they will have to share it with every one else. I am not a huge fan of market economies, but when they work (i.e., there is a healthy level of competition), they work better than anything else we've got. Don't mess with it.

A double-edged sword..

[wfberg]

This just shows that DRM, while being so vilely derided on slashdot, can actually be used for evil, as well as for evil.

Woah! Hold up!

[TiggertheMad]

Let me get this straight. Virgin, (a memeber of the RIAA, right?) is accusing Apple of being a MONOPLY?

Man, I couldn't write a better joke if I tried. Hey Virgim, how do you like them apples...

i am a bigger dork than you!

[proj_2501]

JLG left apple in 1990. Apple allowed officially-sanctioned clones for the first time in 1995, unless you count the DynaMac, which salvaged parts from existing Macs.

Re:I sent this to there wabmeister!

[Altus]

well it is vaguely shaped like a powerbook... and the ones from 1.5 years ago had screens that attach like that (the Ti books not the Al books) but year... the parent is an idiot, if that is a powerbook it was painted black and had a new cover put on the back!

you must be new here.

[OS24Ever]

This is Apple we're talking about, not another company. Apple doesn't license thing, they make an industry leading product only to have the rest of the world scramble to come out with something 'close enough' that everyone accepts and then go to a miniscule but violently loyal fan base.

Re:you must be new here.

[2nd Post!]

Right, they haven't licensed the iPod to HP, and they haven't licensed iTunes for Motorola's cell phones, right?

Re:you must be new here.

[Bricklets]

Apple also doesn't make hardware compatible with Windows either. Uh huh. (Hint: iPod, Airport Express, LCD Screens, etc.)

This isn't 2000 anymore.

If you can't compete...

[b-baggins]

...litigate!

iTunes:being primed to BECOME profitable/monopoly

[cecirdr]

Think about it.... presently Apple makes little off selling tunes. Most of the money comes from selling iPods. BUT, they just licensed the rights to motorola to be able to play aac files from upcoming mobile phones made by moto. Hmmm, wouldn't this eventually cannibalize iPod sales if other companies came onboard and also were capable of decoding aac files? Yeah it would. But it wouldn't matter if Apple's eventual goal is to dominate online music distribution. Once they become THE music service to use, they can increase their profit per song. Even a 1-2% change in how much money they make from selling songs would be a huge profit.

That's why Apple's so furious at Real for cracking aac and creating "harmony". Eventually hardware and software become mature products. R&D to stay ahead of the crowd costs lots of money. Sales drop because you're no longer the cream of the crop, or there's no reason to upgrade because the products are mature. But being the seller of music content, now that's a never ending stream of "new and improved". People are *always* looking for new music.

Virgin, home of the $19.99 CD

[mojoNYC]

have you been in a Virgin Megastore and seen their CD prices?

how do you think their $1.99 per song pricing structure will work out?

Apple's Digital Hub

[ztirffritz]

Apple is not planning on living off of the iPod for the long term goal. They are planning on building the hub of your future digital lifestyle. Digital music, movies, communication, etc. DRM is key to that goal. Apple is just funding this project with the iPod. Eventually iTMS will will either dry up or redefine the music distribution model. I think the latter. Apple will develop an iMovie (iTV?) store as well. With Airport express or a similar product they'll be able to stream files to your entertainment center. Eventually your computer will become part of your entertainment center. Who wants to pay for 24x7 Cable or satelite service if you can pay for just the progamming you want to see/hear? In the end, there will probably be Apple computers, Monitors, Amplifiers, speakers, and a multipurpose digital recorder for audio and video. Video will be pay per view while audio will be owned.

Not what I expected...

[pyrrhonist]

Virgin Accuses Apple of Abusing Monopoly

Considering the title, I was expecting something like this:

CUPERTINO, CA (Reuters) -- A virgin was playing the Parker Bros. game with Steve Jobs, when he noticed the Apple CEO give himself an interest free loan. "That's not allowed under Monopoly version 3 rules", said the avid Slashdot reader, "You come to expect more from someone who plays a CEO in real life; it was clearly an abuse of the rules". Jobs, who was playing the banker in the game, could not be reached for comment. "I should have known when he insisted on being the car, leaving me with the damn boot", the virgin later lamented.

Ok, I'll stop now.

Apple A Monopoly?

[nurb432]

Thats funny..

by extension?

[crono_deus]

Hrm.
Ok, so, say for instance, a compay makes software that runs on only one platform. The software is an incredible hit and fuels the sale of this platform. Other companies want this killer app on their platform. Do they have a right to force the original company to make the software for their platforms?

Draw your own conclusions, but my opinion is thusly: hells freakin' no. Say my company makes software for Apple hardware (and by extension OSX) and it's so freakin' incredible that everyone goes out and buys OSX. No on, but _no one_ has the right to force me to port my app to their platform. It's _my_ software.

I see a similar thing here: Apple has this "app" (AAC wrapped in FairPlay) and it works on the iPod. Apple hasn't stopped anyone from writing other "apps" for the iPod (within the specs of the iPod, of course, just like you'd have to write hardware specific stuff for PPC), but it shouldn't be forced to license that "app" to anyone else.
Now, it _may_ be really good for them to let other people use FairPlay, but I don't feel I have the information I need to make that call.

I must be missing something.?

[nasor]

How is Virgin being hurt by their current inability to use the iTunes DRM system? Since the iPod can play any mp3 file no matter where you get it from, it shouldn't be interfering with Virgin's (or anyone else's) ability to sell people digital music to play on the iPod. Right?

Re:I must be missing something.?

[smcavoy]

Yes you are missing something, it's called DRM!
the whole point of NOT using mp3s is to restrict people to when/where/how they can use their purchase.

Re:I must be missing something.?

[nasor]

" Yes you are missing something, it's called DRM! the whole point of NOT using mp3s is to restrict people to when/where/how they can use their purchase."

Well I realize that, but I don't understand how Apple refusing to share their particular DRM scheme hurts Virgin in any way since you can play *any* mp3 on an iPod, no matter where you get it. So I don't understand how specifically Apple is hurting Virgin's business. I mean, Virgin can still start up an online music store to sell me music and I'll be able to play it on my iPod. It's not like the iPod is DRM locked so that I can't play other people's music on it.

Re:I must be missing something.?

[smcavoy]

I don't think you realize what's going on here....
Virgin (nor any other big lable) will not sell non-drm music.
If their DRM music can't be played on the iPod they lose out on millions of potential customers.

VirginMega?!?

[JBMcB]

I think it's funny that a company called VirginMega is suing a company for being a monopoly. "Globex MegaCorp PanGalactic Enterprises is being harmed by Frank's PC Haus monopoly on the computer service business in Saginaw, Michigan. We are suing!"

I bet the French government will back Virgin just 'cause Apple's DRM wasn't programmed in French or something.

This could be bad for consumers, I know I know...

[mcnut]

Not because of product lock-in.. because as downloading music becomes more and more popular, and more people have the devices, and more places begin to sell it, you'll see the market will move to make a profit instead of decrease like typical goods. So buy your music now, before its US$2.50 a song.

Future of My iTunes...

[endofoctober]

"...or will it be the downfall of the mighty iTunes Music Store?

Not wanting to purchase an iPod, I kinda already gave up on iTunes. Despite it being a nifty integrated player/store/library, iTunes chose a format I'm not willing to switch to, much less buy a player to play on. My CDs have been converted to the format of my choice, and I'm NOT cataloging 500+ CDs again.

I bought about seven songs, then decided that the hassle factor (burning songs to CD, then converting to MP3 or OGG for my portable device) was too high. If they become the standard, then I'll give up completely on downloadable music, and stick to buying CDs from non-RIAA labels.

Gotta go - my high horse has the munchies.

The answer is NEITHER

[nusratt]

"will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard, or will it be the downfall of the mighty iTunes Music Store?"

What it WILL be, is a perfect reason for Virgin to buy up Real -- who recently reverse-engineered FairPlay -- as a new outlet for Virgin's catalogue, bypassing Apple.

Muddy the DRM waters till it goes away ...

[slapphappe]

In the interests of putting an end to encryption based DRM I'm quite happy that Virgin Records sues Apple Computer (although I think their case isn't strong) -- even though I don't want Virgin selling DRM'd files either. Similarly, while I don't think much of Real, I'm happy they've reverse engineered FairPlay.

The bigger the DRM mess becomes, the less likely it is to survive.

It's absolutely not right that we're buying file formats instead of content. Anything that muddies the DRM waters, as they currently exist, works for me.

A double edged sword

[cmirza]

If the FairPlay DRM is opened up for music stores, wouldn't also be possible for hardware manufacturers to then adopt it for their hardware? That would allow 3rd party devices to use iTunes Music Store and be one less advantage that the iPod would have.

What could have been...

[MirgNave]

Man that headline would have been much cooler if Apple had chosen Cherry for its corporate name instead.

Here's the question I find interesting

[mcc]

What happens if Virgin drops the whole "Apple=monopoly" thing and instead chooses to simply license the Harmony hack from realplayer in order to get their music onto iPods?

I don't care if it is good for Apple...

[doneWithMyTattoo]

It would be good for me. FairPlay-AAC and WMA are the two DRM formats available. Microsoft seems to be licnesing out since I can buy home or car audo/vedio elecrtonics to play WMA files. But I can't buy any of that stuff to play FairPlay-AAC files. And I wish I could. Also that Vergin-whatever company has no angle on providing me with a FairPlay-AAC home/car audio device. They are just in it for settlement money. As for Apple, it would be good for them to choose their partnerships, not get forced to lincens to anyone who fills out the court order form. They should get their buddies, Phillips, to start making FairPlay-AAC compatible DVD and CD players.

Intellectual Property

[sybert]

A French company want to take away an American company's inalienable right to private property, what a surprise. FairPlay is Apple's private intellectual property, which they can use as they see fit. If it is Apple's best interests to license their IP then it is up to Apple to make that decision. It is not up to government to nationalize anyone's property, intellectual or tangible.

Interface patents create natural monopolies

[MythoBeast]

It was determined a long time ago that requiring someone to purchase a second item with a first item was a monopolistic tactic. IBM lost that one when they were requiring a service contract with their computers.

Interface patents do the same thing. It allows a company on one side of that interface to monopolize the sale of the software or hardware on the other side of the interface.

This comes up a lot, expecially when people attempt to use the DMCA to protect their right to do these things.

Interfaces are essentially a language. It has already been tested in court that you can't patent a language, simply because you need to release it into the public domain for it to be useful. Interfaces are a little different - you don't have to release them into the public domain for them to be useful, but you do have to do so if you aren't attempting to hold a monopoly on both ends of its use.

Re:Interface patents create natural monopolies

[Ohreally_factor]

Please, explain what you mean by first item and second item. Is the first item the iPod? But you're not required to purchase music from iTMS to use the iPod.

Is the first item music from iTMS? But you do not need to purchase an iPod to play that music. Any computer with the free iTunes software installed will do.

And lastly:

Interfaces are essentially a language. It has already been tested in court that you can't patent a language, simply because you need to release it into the public domain for it to be useful. Interfaces are a little different - you don't have to release them into the public domain for them to be useful, but you do have to do so if you aren't attempting to hold a monopoly on both ends of its use.

Huh? Not even sure where to start. . .

The map is not the territory. While you might find analogous qualities in two different things, that does not make them equal. I think you're confusing semiotics with linguistics. While we might speak of a system in semiotic terms, as if it was a language, that doesn't really make it a language. If we were comparing and contrasting "The language of the English garden vs. the language of the French Garden, we wouldn't actually be discussing a real language.

I'll just pass on the part about needing to release a language into the public domain being tested in court. That just sounds wacky, but whatever. It has no bearing on the matter, so why argue it.

The last sentence, Interfaces are a little different - you don't have to release them into the public domain for them to be useful, but you do have to do so if you aren't attempting to hold a monopoly on both ends of its use.

Excuse me, but I've NEVER heard of any law that rewuires you to release a design for an interface into the public domain because otherwise you'd be attempting to "hold a monopoly"at both ends". Maybe you're from a different country than I am and the laws are different, but this just sounds completely non-sensical.

Someone modded you insightful, so maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying. Could you try to explain it again in a different way?

That is to say...

[FredFnord]

Indeed, and the reason for this is that the cloners were very limited in what they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed to design their own motherboards, for example, but rather had to buy them from Apple.

First: that's misleading. They bought motherboard DESIGNS from Apple, not motherboards.

Second: let's just look at this for a second. One of the StarMax machines included a custom-made PCI card with ethernet and something else (video? SCSI?) on it. The drivers were from Motorola. When the next version of the Mac OS came out, the card simply stopped working because of the way they'd written the drivers. Apple was called over the next week by hundreds of irate StarMax owners.

But I'm sure that if they had just been able to design their own motherboards, everything would have just worked fine and there wouldn't have been any problems with compatibility or anything.

As for the idea that the PowerTowers were the end-all and be-all of Mac-hood, only two things to say. One: they were cheaply made. Things broke. Hardware failed. The case was a generic PC case with flimsy drive-bay doors with plastic fittings that broke off under the slightest bit of pressure. The actual basic design was nice, but the execution *sucked*. And two, especially at that year's MacWorld Expo, PowerComputing sold significantly below cost, because they wanted to entice as many people away from buying a high-end Mac and into their camp. When Apple had really hired people on to cover the low-end while they tried to get the high-end business. Now, you can decide that this was a slimy thing for Apple to do, to try to get someone to shore up their weaknesses rather than steal their best customers. And that's a valid point of view, I suppose. But when it turned around and Apple saw a whole lot of lost sales to people who otherwise would have definitely been buying the highest-end Mac kit, they got miffed.

I would've too. And having worked on a number of Mac clones back then, as a techie, I have to say that none of them were engineered even as well as the PM8500. Which in and of itself was one of the most bone-headed piece of engineering as I have ever seen in all my days.

But at least it was STURDY bone-headed engineering.

-fred

Re:That is to say...

[FredFnord]

> A friend of mine acquired one of them a few years back, and brought it to town for an install-fest when 10.1 came out...
>that has gotta be the coolest OldWorld Mac I've ever seen.

I am willing to bet that you are thinking of the design of the 8600. Which was quite similar to the design of the beige tower G3.

It was prettier, it was smoother, it was nicer on the outside. On the inside, it was beautifully designed, and it and the 9600 were the beginning of the 'opens easily, folds out, and everything is really convenient inside' towers. (Well... actually Apple had made stabs at this before, but the 8600 was the first time that it really stood out as a design goal in a tower case.)

The 7200, 7500, 7600, and desktop G3 were all a WONDERFUL design: butterfly, you could fold out the power supply and the entire set of drives on a hinge to one side and a little cover over the PCI cards on the other. Then you could plug the power supply back into the outlet (having needed to unplug nothing else), and run the machine with everything open and out there. Shut down. Plug in a DIMM. Hit the power button. Did it work? No? Take it back out. It was that easy. It was lovely.

The 8500 and 9500, by contrast, were awful. I never thought them at all attractive (the 8500 looked just like the Quadra 800) and the insides were a sheer nightmare. There is a recurring story (which I can't swear to) that someone brought them to either a board meeting or a meeting of the lord-high-mucky-mucks at Apple and challenged them to change the memory on them. You had to unhook all your drives, unhook the power supply, unhook all the other cables. I *think* you had to remove the power supply. Then you had to take out the motherboard and slot the memory. And you had to reverse the entire process before you could find out whether the new memory worked or not. According to the story, none of the people at the meeting who tried it managed to add memory without cutting themselves. And thus the 8600 and 9600, which otherwise could have been simple motherboard upgrades with the same case, were born.

I don't know if it's true in fact, but it certainly was in spirit. The 8500 and 9500 were just plain painful, the former more than the latter. The 7500's case, in contrast, was a dream. Smaller, more compact, a more DIFFICULT piece of engineering, and yet it was easier to use in every significant way.

-fred

Re:A distinction...

[mrchaotica]

The problem is, who wants part of a monopoly with razor-thin profit margins?

That's some good evidence that it's not a monopoly, because one of the characteristics of a monopoly is that the company can set prices (to an extent). If it is a monopoly, Apple could raise prices without affecting sales, and I don't believe they can.

Re:fsck france

[black mariah]

Knowing what an outright bastard Jobs is (and I mean that in a good way), you may be right. He seems the kind to piss off an entire country at the cost of his bottom line, and I respect that.

Actually...

[FredFnord]

...I don't know about that. French law only counts product sales in France. If Apple has a 95% market share in France, it has a monopoly in France, regardless of what is happening elsewhere. And that wouldn't surprise me as much as it might you, because the French have an eye for elegant hardware, and an unconcealed loathing for 'wanna-be' junk. It's just one of the traits that makes Americans hate them so much.

So before you start spouting off on it not being a monopoly, let's see your numbers on French music player sales.

-fred

cry me a river...

[lungbutter]

...and Virgin Megastores haven't sold Mac software since their inception. Virgin never cared about Apple! Why should Apple give the time of day to Virgin? The point of iTMS/iPod is TO PUT THE BRICK AND MORTER STORES OUT OF BUSINESS! They're obsolete...cry all they want...they didn't come up with ANY of the technology to make this happen so why do they think Apple owes them ANYTHING?!?

Re:I don't get Apple's reluctance to do this

[Bricklets]

Same thing with the iPods. People didn't understand before why Apple made iPods exclusive to Mac users. They were griping Apple for not realizing iPod's full potential. We all know how that's turning out. Apple bided its time and came out with a PC-compatible model when it was ready to take on the market.

Same can be said about iTunes. Just because Apple isn't opening iTMS today doesn't mean they don't have plans to do so in the near future. Everyone just needs to chill out a bit and be patient. Apple is probably biding their time again and tweaking iTunes into a better service until they're ready to take on the market.

The real question is...

[Warlock7]

Did they get turned away or did they not agree to the licensing offered by Apple in the first place? Motorola has a long-standing relationship with Apple and most likely agreed to an exclusive DRM license deal that Apple agreed with and allowed them to distribute. The long term goals of the iTMS and iPod appear to be getting the Fairplay DRM distributed to the masses without interference from some other competing DRM.

really a virgin? Re:This Raises An Excellent Quest

[swschrad]

virgin music has released product before. it is no longer a virgin. apple should countersue to have them change their name to "slut entertainment" since they are obviously selling their wares for money.

that'll teach 'em.

Thanks for getting back to me

[Ohreally_factor]

The case here is a little more complicated.

Exactly my point. It is very far from clear cut which is why you can't call it a "monopolistic tactic" without major qualifications and equivications. Two further counterpoints. One, last I heard, one in three mp3 players sold was an iPod. Apple might currently be the most successful player, but it is wrong to claim that they have anything approaching a monopoly position (yet. I'll concede that it could happen.). Second, they're not shutting out the record industry! The record industry, in the form of the dominant cartel, the RIAA companies, has the monopoly power and ultimately controls the product.

Protocols and languages are both methods of transimitting information from one entity to another. Certainly protocols aren't NATURAL languages or human languages -they have a much smaller bredth of information that they need to be flexible enough to transmit - but the analogy is sound.

It might be a sound analogy, but it not a perfect analogy. You and I could develop a computer programming language and not publish it in the public domain, and that language would still be useful for creating effective programs. There is no law that would require us to open that language to others, either freely or for recompense. We could have a "monopoly" on that language, but it could never become a monopoly because there would always be the (very easy) possibility of lots of competition.

In your example, it sounds like the community created a new language, and the original work is not necessarily protected by copyright law when creating something new. Definitions of derivative works come into play here. If the language had been patented, the result might have been different, since patents do generally control derivative works, even new work if it is based on the patented work. Still, I don't know tha particulars.

I do think you're on a good track that deserves further thought and follow up regarding interface as being langauge-like. (And I do agree with you philosophically about patents.) May I suggest you read Roland Barthes on the topic of Semiotics and Semiology? Check out Mythologies . From the Amazon book description: "For Barthes, words and objects have in common the organized capacity to say something. . ."

As your argument currently stands, I find much fault. However, I do think you are on to something, maybe something larger than the current set of issues under discussion.