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

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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)

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.

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)

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!

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.

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?

Oh, the irony

[Weaselmancer]

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

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!

[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?

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.

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.

[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: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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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: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.