Slashdot Mirror
iTunes User Sues Apple Over Lock-In
GregChant writes "It seems like Apple can also be at the receiving end of a lawsuit, too: Californian Thomas Slattery filed suit against Apple because 'Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice'. With over 200 million songs sold, and Apple controlling over 80% of the hard drive digital audio player market, is this just a case of someone just trying to cash in on Apple's success? Or is this genuinely an issue of buyer lock-in and monopolistic practices?"
Apple is, and has seemed, to be a monopolisitc type company. Take their computing line for example. The hardware is designed and manufactured by Apple, the software developed and sold by Apple, and upgrades and most extra hardware sold by Apple. Support and apps are mostly through Apple as well. Their OS does not even have a port to an x86 based system, even though proposed several times. They have their own "AirPort" 802.11 systems and technologies such as firewire, which fortunatly are open to everyone but not widespread.
The deal with the iPod is just the same. They would like to keep eveything pertinent to themselves. If it is possible, they will go on as long as they can. But now with this suit, it will likely change. They should use some format that can be exported and then saved onto any player or transfered elsewhere. There are SourceForge projects that do this, but it should be native...
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
What "point" do you think is defeated, and what problem do you think you're solving for them? It's incredibly unlikely that Apple will lose this suit; they don't really have a problem.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Indeed. However, even if the RIAA didn't require DRM, Apple would still be pushing DRM. From the EFF:
"Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who 'was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod' if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to."
He can burn CDs of his music from iTunes. Even the claim that Apple has turned an "open and interactive standard" into something proprietary is ludicrous, as AAC is not an open standard.
Yes and have you done much of this - the resultant CD is only just OK - it does not sound as good as the original iTunes file.
I've done this for a few CDs and they are pretty good for listening on my car stereo where I've already got road noise and other distractions, but even on a portable CD player the sound quality with a good pair of headphones is quite noticable and if I try playing it on my HiFi it really is noticable - better to hook my Mac directly up to my stereo (I don't have an iPod - Yet).
And if you try then reconverting the back into MP3 or someother format then it really sucks.....
I'm not necessarily supporting the guy's argument, but the proposed solution is not in my mind all that great because you contunually lose audio fidelity and quality everytime you go through another coding step.
Actually, no. Apple would be pushing DRM even if the RIAA didn't require it. From the EFF:
I'm using Redhat 9 while I mull over which distro I'm jumping to next. Microsoft isn't forcing me to do anything either. And even if I have windows, I've got quite the pick of browsers and media players free and not. They'd just preinstall crap for my convienence. At least in the case of Microsoft they're thing that allow me to do things easily, rather preventing me from doing them easily. So please explain what your standard for having a monopoly is....
Reverse engineering is still legal. Apple can suck it. Or should AMD just hand their fab keys over to Intel with a handwritten appology?
Remember three clicks is three times more than one click on a link to setup.exe. And that's too great a barrier to entry. Also, there is the inserting of the media, the waiting for it to burn, and then going back and ripping everything again. All of which is a far greater barrier than "click."
So you're implying that because our newest and hippest technology is monopolistic, that if we don't like it, we should take a step BACK, technologically speaking.....
Right, that's pretty stupid. If there were a "secret reason" behind this guy's lawsuit, you've indirectly nailed it.
Apple isn't getting sued over having a monopoly over the digital music market. They're getting sued because this guy wants to use a different hard drive mp3 player than an Ipod with Itunes.
People misread the arguments yet again! I remember when Microsoft went to court over monopolizing WINDOWS, not OS's. Yet everyone misread the arguments to read "Microsoft has monopolized the OS market" and thought "That's crap, they're not the only OS on the market." Of course they're not the only OS on the market! And of course Apple isn't the only company to buy music from right now. But the fact of the matter is, they have a lock-in regarding which hardware you can use with their software. THAT'S what they're going to court over.
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
Apple have a monopoly on the digital download market. Yes, there are other options but there are alternatives to Windows as well. This didn't protect them against claims they have a monopoly. iTunes clearly makes up most of the market.
To use it, you need to buy a second piece of hardware. This is a lot more of a problem for the cinsumer than MS bundling a browser. This is arguably part of the system, and only an incremental step after also supplying a text editor and other applications. iTunes users actually have to go out and buy another product which is only tangentially related. They have a choice of just one because Apple refuse to either licence their DRM, or offer an alternative format from iTunes. If you wanta portable digital music player, apple prevent you from having a choice. This is quite clearly product tying. This is illegal abuse of a monopoly.
The fact that there are other services isn't significant. Since Apple has such a large proportion of the customer base, there is clearly a good reason for this. Copying to CD, then reencoding to mp3 also isn't a reasonable option. This is very inconvenient, for those who aren't tech savvy, and loses track information for those who are.
Why are people defending Apple for reducing consumer choice?
Exactly. I've got a CD-RW in my laptop that sits there pretty much for this purpose. Within 15 minutes of buying an album from iTunes, I have MP3's for my Neuros. True, they've been compressed twice, but I fail to see how a direct transcoder is going to do anything different.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Windows Media DRM scheme, while more oppressive in most ways, is licensed to several different portable players (i believe).
This, to me, has been the most obnoxious part of apple's DRM since the beginning. Overall, it's pretty lenient, but it does lock the music buyer into apple's hardware from a legal, not to mention practical, standpoint. People aren't going to buy a Zen player, then burn all their music to CD, then rip it all into MP3 at a loss of quality.
Whether the issue is lawsuit-worthy, on the other hand, is arguable. I, for one, don't think so. I think it's obnoxious on the part of apple -- just as so much of what microsoft does is obnoxious -- but probably not illegal.
If Real was really concerned about the compatibility of their music with different players, they could have simply used un-DRMed AAC or MP3. But they didn't. They just wanted to piggyback on Apple's success (and oh by the way, not have their software work on Macs, but that's another story).
Apple had no obligation to consult with Real and figure out how to not break their software.
Jesus, this is REAL NETWORKS we're talking about. They've been purveying the MOST OBNOXIOUS SOFTWARE EVER for ten years now.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
What do you mean open sourced it? The file format is a standard format, it's part of MPEG-4. It's not like it's some proprietary Apple thing. Or do you mean open source the DRM layer? That would eliminate the entire point of having such a layer by showing people precisely how to go in and remove the DRM component. Apple's done a very good thing here. The iTunes store is a very good thing. It's reasonably priced, broadly available and as a heavy user of Macs, PCs and my iPod, I have never encountered anything in the DRM which has ever prevented me from doing something I've wanted to do. DRM is the price of getting low-cost, legally available copyrighted material via the Web. For the convenience iTunes affords me, I will gladly pay that cost.
Never trust anyone who treats a collection of myths like a science book, or a science book like a collection of myths.
If Apple would just license FairPlay, people/companies wouldn't be complaining. As it is now, Apple wants to keep FairPlay locked up to lock customers into the iPod and iTMS. I really don't see how this is any different that what MS does that gets all the Apple fans screaming against MS.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
"contunually lose audio fidelity and quality everytime you go through another coding step."
Just like you lost quality when the sound studio mixed the album and encoded it to put it on a CD. The only way you're going to get a perfect reproduction with all the clarity is to go listen to a live concert. Even then you have to deal with noise on the speaker wire, distortions caused by a bad mic, or the occasional bleed from a radio station.
I agree that the solution isn't ideal, but he cannot make the claim that he was "forced to buy an iPod." Sounds to me like he just didn't do his homework before he downloaded iTunes. I wonder if he bought a DVD player to watch VHS movies?
The lawsuit isn't over sound quality, and it's no secret that the buy-burn-rip method will allow this guy to do what he claims he can't. Hopefully he'll get nowhere with this.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
I personally would rather see Apple license their protected AAC format and compete then see Apple try to lock-in a market segment.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
If Apple are doing monopolistic things, then they are being a monopoly, even though they haven't been convicted yet or may never be convicted of those practices.
Dude you need to re-evaluate your logic. Unless Apple is convicted of being a monopoly, they are NOT a monopoly. Once they are convicted, then they must play by different rules yes, but until that time they can do as they like. Being anti-compeditive is not OK, but that doesn't make it unlawful (as in the case of MS).
Being a monopoly means you have control over a market and the user has no choice. This in itself isn't a bad thing, it's only bad when users cannot use alternatives even if they want to and the company uses their advantage in an uncompeditive mannor. How is Apple uncompeditive with the iPod? Do they make it so you can't buy a competing product? Is the competition suffering because Apple is undercutting them on price? No. It's not like you can't play the standard MP3 on the device either. The fact that iTMS only allows you to download songs that iTunes and the iPod can play is a matter of the format. No one is stopping you from going to allofmp3.com downloading mp3s and putting that on your ipod.
So please tell me how Apple is being uncompeditive here. It sounds to me like it's lazyness on the part of the user not looking for alternatives. They're there. They're cheaper. They're more flexible. No one is forcing you to use an ipod or iTMS
Apparently, the infamous French Competition Council agrees with this opinion. They claim that the iPod plays several formats of music, of which FairPlay/AAC is only one. It would be entirely possible for an enterprising company to leverage this to make a system which relies on the iPod's natural security (it is difficult, although not impossible, to remove songs from your iPod... at least for a casual user) and specific downloading tools.
Since Real has managed to make Harmony (and evidently Apple can't stop them), you've got concrete evidence that it's possible, albeit difficult.
But... has anyone considered that the decision to license their format may not be Apple's choice? Apple itself licenses the DRM they are using, they didn't create it in house. Much like Nvidia may not be able to legally open their graphics card drivers, Apple may be in a position where it is not their call to make.
So far, the FairPlay format has proven to be pretty good. Not perfect, but we know that no DRM scheme can be. The RIAA is demanding that DRM be used. And it's also quite possible that they don't want Apple to license the DRM either. When it comes to iTMS, Apple has to listen to the RIAA, otherwise they'll back out entirely.
Does this mean that Apple might be in a legal-rock-or-hard-place? Possibly... but here's an even worse thought. What happens if this situation forces them to close iTMS?
The iPod is the dominant MP3 player on the market, and the iTMS is probably the biggest music store. But they are not your only option! Many other players exist out there, and many other online stores. Apple has a massive market lead, but nothing forces you to buy an iPod except your desire to use iTunes Music Store. Other MP3 players provide nearly identical (and sometimes superior) functionality.Apple's music store is so popular because of the experience as a whole. It is easy, attractive, and has a good selection. But other music stores have comparable selections, and other music players integrate with them just fine. We are not yet at a situation where you must use an iPod and iTMS in order to get anything done in the digital music world.
To further prove the case, note that it's trivially easy to burn the protected songs to CDs, and then rip them back into another format. You may suffer some quality loss in this fashion, but in most cases it will not be significant enough to ruin the song (unless you are an audiophile with a trained ear). Apple could sneakily address this problem with a DRM'd lossless encoding of the file.
The suit is spurious, and should be dismissed. Maybe in 5 years he'll have grounds for it.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
So? There's nothing illegal about being anti-competitive when you're not a monopoly, and Apple isn't one.
Besides, anyone can interoperate with the iPod all they want, just use MP3, AIFF, or WAV (or AAC). Should Apple be forced to open a format for no particular legal reason other than their success? I don't see any other company in an open market being forced to let the competition use their technology. Apple is not in a monopolistic position, they don't have to play with a handicap.
I fail to see what people think Apple has a monopoly on. Most if not all of the songs available through the store can be bought in at least 2-3 other medias, digital or otherwise. If Apple controlled all digital music distribution you might have a point, but they don't
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
No, other companies are bitching because Apple deliberately stops them selling restricted songs for the iPod, and major label music is only available to them if they agree to restrict it. Look at real. They tried to license the format so that they could also sell music for the iPod. Then when apple refused they hacked the format. Then apple deliberately made them incompatiable. That is abusing a monopoly. If it were anyone other than Apple doing this, you wouldn't think twice before saying so.
I am trolling
That's because 80% of people chose the iPod. Unlike Windows, they didn't pick it because they had to interoperate, because MS Office didn't run on their platform, or because they couldn't share drives or get support.
I could buy a Rio. I just don't want to because the iPod is better. And if I had a Rio, or thought I ever would, I would know better than to buy from iTunes.
Same with razor blades. Buy Gilette blades, use Gilette handles.
Now, I actually like iTunes. It slurped up my previously ripped MP3 collection with no problems. I like the design, layout, and semantics of iTunes. It's really a nice app.
What's more, is that the SlimServer software has some integration with iTunes. Pretty cool. You can set up playlists in iTunes and then use SlimServer to play it through your stereo via the SqueezeBox. Way cool, really.
So, my wife heard a song on the radio that she liked, so we fired up iTunes and got an account on iTMS. Very nice integration, I must say. We found the song she liked, paid our $0.99 and downloaded it. It was an extremely smooth and appealing experience. But after getting the song, we found that we can use iTunes to play it through the computer's speakers, but when we try to play it through the SqueezeBox -- nothing!! It won't work.
I dug around, and finally found this:
This means that I paid $0.99 for a worthless stream of bytes!! I'm not gonna spend time to download, burn, and re-rip. That's stupid. I can go buy the damn CD, rip it, and then immediately sell it to Cheapo, and be out only a little money (as opposed to the total loss that iTMS offers). Thankfully, I downloaded only one song and wasted only a buck.
iTMS looks really nice, and you gotta hand it to Apple -- it's a nicely integrated product. I like iTunes, and I'll probably continue to use it. But, until I can play music on my own players, I will not be wasting any more money on iTMS.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
That gives me an idea.
I think I will sue Microsoft and whatnot companies in a giant suit for them NOT to be supported in the leading edge's Portable music player (iPods). I want to buy songs from wal-mart but it comes only in WMA and can't be played on iPods nor even thrown on a CD. heck, I haven't tried playing music on the WMP for Mac but I have doubts this will work.
I think I will sue the Canadian Gov't for their services not to work on Safari, only one IE of particular version without the Sun JRE plugged-in or else you can't use their secure services. I have doubts this will work.
Mike