Slashdot Mirror
iPod Tax Causes Sour Apples
An anonymous reader writes "Apple Computer is stepping up its push to get iPod accessory makers to pay for the right to connect to the popular music player." From the article: "It's not clear what means Apple might employ if companies don't go along, as Apple declined to comment on that. Though many manufacturers have signed up for the program so far, some have complained in private that it's too high a price. But for Apple, the move is a chance to profit further from the empire it has built on the iPod, given that the market for such add-ons is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year."
And so another company that had an emerging monopoly blows all of its accumulated goodwill and demonstrates why monopolies are ALWAYS bad. And, no, there is no such thing as a NATURAL monopoly. Nature abhors monopolies.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
If you want to say "Made for iPod", pay the money. If you don't, then say something else.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Doesn't this sound EXACTLY like what Apple is dissing the RIAA for, i.e. trying to make more money off of the IPOD?
If Apple doesn't do the engineering for accessories or the manufacturing - I see NO reason they should receive the profits?!?
I have similar feelings about Apple paying RIAA.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
...When used with a portable music player, then for any third-party accessory to match the ipod, they'd have to license Apple's patent...charge extra for the right to use Apple's "White Power certified" trademark on their accessory.
No true ipod weenie would buy or use a non-matching accessory.
So, Is MPAA to Apple as Apple is to add-on makers?
Or is Greedy generic enough to cover all the bases?
IMarv
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
...accessory manufacturers are complaining. The cell phone industry has been doing this for years. There will always be cheap knockoffs though, just take a look on EBay for that.
First record companies say that they want a cut of iPod sales, and Apple says "Oooooo, that's bad! Can't do that!"
Now they're turning around and telling add-on companies they want to do the same thing???
Geesh
With the swift turnaround of Jobs to support video iPods (but where's the content?) it is uncomfortable to see companies search for more money in such a way. What will be next?
I think this will make companies reconsider, that are looking to develop software or hardware for the mac.
If it's only money for analysis and approval of the item though, it wouldn't bother me that much though.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
So wait, do we love or hate Apple today?
Obviously Apple is taking risks and is spending bucks to position their iTunes/iPod infrastructure as a new media distribution network. You want to hook into that? Well, you're going to have to pay a price - of course! That's the nature of business - you take it while you can - and as much as possible while you're at it! There will always be companies complaining about exorbitant fees, and yes, it might cut out some of the smaller players, but unfortunately the world of business is not about fairness. The trick is to get in early and make a bundle being one of the first to leverage this emerging market. Just my 2 cents...
Problem solved!
If you want to take a bite out of the Apple, you better compensate the worm.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm just waiting for the Tax tax, you know it's coming...
I don't get it.
I may be wrong in my history, but if memory serves me correctly-
*takes a bite out of a yellow pepper*
- Atari (or was it Colecovision? It's been so long ago I can't remember) originally had a "no license fee" to their system. Which leads to an overabundance of very crappy games, which lead to death of the system.
When Nintendo had their NES system, if you wanted the "Gold Sticker" of quality, you had to go through Nintendo's process and give them a cut for the licensing. Which forged a company that is profitable even today.
So, is Apple being "teh evil" by enforcing a trademark license - if you want to use the words "Made for iPod" on your product, you pay the fee that lets them decide if your item is actually worth it. Or, you can go the Gameshark route and *not* license your product and sell it as "iPod compatible, not licensed by Apple" and still make money anyway.
Personally, I think that Apple's being a touch overhanded here, but they're working with an existing model, one they hope to bring them enough money to continue to fund new products and new directions.
Of course, this is all just my opinion - I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I can see this going two ways.
On the one hand, people will cry out "Monopoly!" and point at Apple. Naturally, Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market makes it a likely target for such a label, and a move like this certainly helps reinforce that image.
But on the other hand, the manufacturers of the third party add-ons are making a mint off the iPod themselves. If their entire industry is based on the existance of the iPod, doesn't Apple have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales? Without the iPod, those accessories wouldn't exist. I'd see it as paying a royalty to use the iPod brand/name/whatever. Items marketed as "For use with iPod" should pay to use the name "iPod." For some reason, a set of speakers marked as "iPod Speakers" sounds better than "Speakers for use with that fruit-named company's music player."
....has just created a huge dis-incentive to people who want to make iPod accessories just so he can make a few extra bucks and keep his shareholders happy. I'd just love to see these companies come out and call Apple out on this. But it won't happen because of Apple's love of using lawyers to keep the "reality distortion field" in full effect.
IMHO, Jobs is as much of a crook as the two headed monster known as the MPAA/RIAA.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
You will know when Apple has gained monopoly marketshare when they leverage MacOS X on Intel by forcing iPod users to drop Windows. Somehow, I think Apple demanding certain manufacturing agreements with industry players doesn't quite measure up to a "portable mp3 music player" monopoly. --M
For myself, the ONLY reason I own an iPod was the amazing plethora of accessories avaialable for it. It's simpy not a very impressive MP3 player (other than styling), but being able to choose from a bazillion accessories makes it pretty attractive.
If Apple tries too much of this, they're going to learn that holding a majority share of a market is NOT the same as a monopoly. Piss off the market enough, and Creative is going to sell a LOT more Zens.
This sounds extrmemly reminiscent of the ill fated "mac clone" fiasco a few years back.
Depends on wether slashdotters just read the headline, or take time to read the article. I'm thinking it's not the latter.
First MS releases an innovative wireless software with source. Then Google screws with privacy and Apple becomes "evil" and screws some vendors. Yikes! The /. Crew most not be happy today!
First Google turns all evil and shit. And now Apple pulls this shit!
Whats a freeloading commie hippie supposed to think?
How does Nintendo handle the addons for its various handheld gaming systems? How do the addon manufacturers handle it? How do they refer to their compatibility with Nintendo devices? Do they flat out say, "GameBoy-compatible" or do they word it to avoid naming the Nintendo products supported?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Apple Retail is a major source of iPod peripheral sales. Apple not stocking your product if you don't pay their useless tithe is coercive and monopolistic. You pay not because you want the product but because you don't want them to hurt you.
In doing such a thing apple makes it harder for small businesses to use the Ipod for some neat trix. One would think that companies wouldve learned by now that allowing people to use your device to create cool stuff actually increases the profits earned from the sales of the device. Imagine for a second if Valve decided to have everyone pay a fee if they were to mod the original halflife, I would bet that counter strike would have been realeased for some other game instead and valve would have missed out on an extreme amount of cash.
Don't say "made for iPod" if your product isn't. It limits your market. Just about any sound player/recorder can use a stereo lapel mic, external speakers, etc.
The camera makers like Canon don't sell rights to make compatible
lenses. So if you buy a non-Canon lens for your SLR, you are in effect
buying a pirated product. And camera makes change their systems
all the time to make them incompatible with lenses by third parties.
Apple could follow suit - but by licensing Apple allows third-party
innovation. Good for Apple, good for iPod accessories, good for
iPod users.
What would Slashdot say if MS charged 10% for apps released on Windows platform.....
Does this sound right?
Without windows platform there will be no apps. So this thing is totally fine....
iPod, iMac, iTunes, iLife, iTax... though initially the latter was going to be a competitor to QuickTax.
EricInvisible Fence Guide
Did apple not learn from it's mistake several years back to lock out companies for all the accesories for the Apple PC. The accessory companies then turned to the PC and made that successful. Hopefully they do the same for the iPOD with this BS going on!
what a stupid and terrible headline. there have been ipod taxes enacted and talked about in other countries, so a headline like this makes it seem like the story will actually be about taxes imposed on ipods and customers who buy them.
think.
-- lol pwned
Thus Apple creates market incentives for an Open Source solution.
"It's not clear what means Apple might employ if companies don't go along, as Apple declined to comment on that."
They'll likely do what they've always done. If someone makes an iPod accessory and doesn't pay the "tax" they'll send in the lawyers.
It makes me wonder if they got the same people who came up with the Microsoft Protection Racket to come up with this idea.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Nature abhors monopolies.
/.?
How can you say that, look around you!
- How many websites compete with
- Humans have a monopoly as far as higher order species.
- The Earth has a heck of a monopoly on liveable planets (at least in our solar system, at least as far as we can tell)
- Almost all useable light that shines on the Earth and helps to create/maintain life comes from a single source
- Much of what is animalistic instinct is to try to attain a monopoly at any stratum.
This kind of reminds me of the old deal with the gold "Liscensed by Nintendo" emblems that used to appear on cartridge labels back in the 80's.
As other companies figured out how to zap Nintendos lock-out chip so they could make their owned games without the shiny gold emblem, Tengen just went ahead and used legal action (which they eventually lost their case for miserably) and got the code for it from the copyright office. After that, the Tetris suit, retailers not carring Tengen titles due to threats from Nintendo, they were ultimately strong-armed and shut down by Nintendo.
Now I don't know what ever came of the manufactorer that made the un-Nintendo-liscensed "Chiller" and "Baby Boomer" titles, but something tells me they didn't exactly become a big success.
So in the case of Nintendo... despite Nintendos bullying and Tengens efforts to get things done their way, Nintendo is still a loved company and Tengen is out of business.
Would the same sort of thing happen for Apple with the iPod accessories? Perhaps. As much I despise Apple and would never own an iPod... I know there are plenty of people who think different (as lame as different may be) that will be more than happy to shell out big bucks for their trendy accessories with Apple logos on them.
A: Around about the middle of '90, while Sculley was at the helm, Apple raised prices across the board. Product demand was strong, and Apple shipped more systems per year than anyone. They figured this was an Econ 101 situation, and raised prices with only a fig leaf attempt to bs their way out of it. Obviously someone dropped out before Econ 401, which would have taught the costs of trading on "good will", when they could have been looking at increasing their market share upward from 20%.
B: Learning from Atari's experience where unmanaged 3rd party game developers flooded the market with crappy product, Nintendo required developers to register with them for the right to see the NES s/w development tools, or get any cooperation in distributing game carts. While some moaned that this was a restraint of trade and raised prices, Nintendo was able to control who traded on Nintendo's good will.
So, which is it for Apple, this time? Any knowledgeable insider Anon Coward care to comment?
Luke, help me take this mask off
This sounds extrmemly reminiscent of the ill fated "mac clone" fiasco a few years back.
If Apple had opened up the Mac to cloning, after seeing how Compaq successfully did their number on IBM, they would have stood a good chance of establishing the Mac platform either as the main standard or at least a second standard of equal standing. Had they done so, their software development efforts would take up a much larger portion of the company than they do now - and they might even have stayed the best-selling Mac manufacturer, in the way that Dell has stayed the best-selling PC manufacturer.
And Apple wasn't asked by the RIAA to increase prices at the iTunes store, I believe it was more like a demand for a piece of the action. That
Kulakovich
The article says that this tax isn't for all accessories, only the ones that attach to the connector on the bottom of the device.
It's also something where they are trying to insure that these devices won't harm them in the long run. TFA states that having the "Made for iPod" seal on these devices ensures that these deviuces will work on current and future iPod versions.
If I was Apple, I wouldn't want some third-rate speaker system to be designed for the current generations of the iPod, then not work on all future versions, having this burn the buyer into not wanting to buy newer versions of said speakers to continue to enjoy his/her iPod and feeling jaded by the iPod that a certified piece of gear would be gauranteed to do from the box. I think it's a good move for the future.
Napalm is nature's toothpaste
... with the Apple ][+. I'd probably be flipping burgers instead of writing software.
Isn't it about time for another Slashdot interview with Steve Wozniak? I wonder what his thoughts would be on this. What opportunities is Apple missing by nailing their architecture shut?
"Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital with the iPod, geek capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style" -- Steve Jobs
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I suspect the bigger companies will go along, seeing the fee as away of keeping smaller players from moving into the market.
Think Deeply.
Apple is providing technical information and support for accessories that want to electronically interface with the iPod. There are no charges for cases and other types of products. Apple is also standardizing on the iPod connector and including form factor adapters with iPods to allow them to continue working with existing accessories. These services and adapters will cost Apple money. Maybe they are charging too much, maybe not, but it is not unreasonable to charge them. Both parties will benefit. The vendors get to continue to ride the iPod phenomenon and Apple gets to offset some, or maybe all, of the cost of supporting and accomodating these guys.
selling accessories to end users have ANYTHING to do with apple?
once an ipod is sold to a customer, apple no longer has any say over what happens to that device or how it interacts with any other devices.
period.
this is pure bullshit.
same racket that console manufacturers run.
getting permission is NOT required by moral law. legal laws are completely obscene. and even there, there might be ways of not bending over to corporate interests.
that's the definition of property laws. if you own property, you can do just about anything you want, barring things which can cause death or injury.
no one needs "permission" to make accessories for any device. but that's what DRM is for. now you're getting the hang of it. without DRM and DMCA, it would be a simple matter for people to exercise their property rights.
now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
This is the same reason we are saying "empire it has built on the iPod" instead of "empire it has built on the Mac".
If nature abhors monopolies - why would we keep getting them? You're not supposed to like them - but they know they won't exist if nobody'll get off their arse to break them. That's why they always try to hover on the line.
You might hate windows, but it's cheap and anything you create for it has a potential audience. You might want to buy a non-Apple portable music player, but there are all those nifty accessories the others don't have.
At the end of the day, this screws iPod owners more than anyone else. Like Honda Civic owners, we have enjoyed a rich ecosystem of aftermarket products that pay dividends on our iPod investment. An iPod with the right third-party accessories can be a recorder, a transmitter, a boom box -- even a laser-pointer. Buying an iPod paid out well, because the iPod was a platform for innovation.
Apple's closing of the open market can only retard innovation. The space of accessory-makers willing to pay and ask for permission is necessarily smaller than the space of all potential accessory-makers. That means less competition for iPod accessories, which means higher prices and less innovation. That means that The Steve just devalued our investment in iPods.
One question: once permission is required, mightn't it be withheld? Can we be certain that Apple will allow all comers to buy a license? After all, they already threatened to sue a competitor, Real, that wanted to add new features to the iPod. What other new features -- features that iPod owners can benefit from -- might Apple veto?
That's an oxymoron.
Look, one might disagree with Apple's policy for any number of valid reasons. For example: it's a poor long term policy if one believes in the importance of business relationships; it stifles Apple's secondary manufacturing market and thus impacts the utility of their product line the consumers; the short term gains aren't worth the potential long term losses... blah blah blah. But then you'd be forced to argue the profit potential and long term effects of their policy instead of simply claiming a negative gut reaction. So you don't like it. If it pisses you off enough, buy a competitor's product. But don't claim it is proof of a monopoly. There are plenty of third party portable mp3 and digital music players on the market. Apple can neither force their competitors out of that market, nor can they use the iPod to leverage their other market (computers, Operating Systems, and application software). Deal. --M
Many resale stores now play games with product placement payments, among other forms of bribery. It used to be they just resold products, now they sell shelf space for products and promotions AND markup the selling price! Remember when Microsoft payed stores to push their xbox? even giving a bit to the store employees?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
that our planet will be one big ol' mold ball in a ...
few thousand years. if one mushroom finally convinces
itself that a great source of energy would be salt water,
there's no turning back and this planet will see a
r/evolution in the likes when some cells decided to become
green and started splitting excess co2 into sugars and
oxygen (the stuff a apple buyer needs) and killing all
the oxygen (wasn't that a network?) haters
What do you mean kept it below market levels? what's market level? Market level doesnt imply cost to produce, so Alcoa is not selling at below cost to gain unfair market share with the intent of raising prices once competition is eliminated. There is nothing unethical in selling a product cheaper than your competitor as long as it's not done for the specific purpose of eliminating the competitor so that you can ultimately raise your prices.
.. you have to sell on itunes.
Market levels?? what defines market level? the price at which "n" number of companies are able to make a product? What's n equal to? 5? 10? 1 million?
Alcoa sold aluminum at the lowest cost to the consumer. Others were free to make aluminum but didnt know how to produce it so cheaply, couldn't, or didnt want to because of the low margins.
I dont see what this has to do with monopolies.
Apple's monopoly and practice is very different. Alcoa isn't making extra revenue per product that utilizes aluminum. Alcoa doesn't own a store by which all aluminum end products made to work with alcoa aluminum is sold. Apple doesnt allow non Fairplay DRM songs to play on the ipod. You can play non DRM mp3's but ipod doesnt understand WMA or other DRM formats. If you want to DRM protect your song and have access to the ipod owning masses
Now if RMS can get some GNU branded MP3 equipment out...oh yeah, hardware takes actual industrial capacity and money, which means organizing actual professionals who expect a steady flow of hard cash. Back to the commune, then!
I'm going to start charging companies who manufacture accessories for me, like hats, clothes, and life jackets.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
I'm usually quite pro-Apple, but after reading the article... this seems exactly like the crap the record companies are trying to foist off on Apple (I'm referring to their attempts to force Apple to share iPod sales profits with them). That's ludicrous, and so is this.
Requiring a fee for the "Made for iPod" logo would be fine, because a third-party manufacturer could choose to go logo-free. But requiring that all dock-compatible accessories carry that logo - and therefore pay that license fee? Give me a break.
#DeleteChrome
And what's the market price? If there's only one seller, what justification do you have for determining that price? Even if you're right, how do you know that prices wouldn't be even lower given real competition?
How about using nano instead of the 2nd generation IPOD logo that is currently used on this site?
This is about branding and use of logos on packaging and marketing materials. It is common practice to have a charge to license such things and for certification of hardware addons that connect directly to a device.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
How about using a Nano pic instead of the 2nd generation IPOD logo that is currently used on this site? which bring up a good point, alot of those category icons are getting pretty out dated... what is the process for updating them. Isnt this site supposedly to undergo a totally new redo?
I don't want to defend the policy, because there are plenty of reasons why it might be a mistake for Apple to try to extract revenue with partnering manufacturers like this. However, just to respond to your Ford analogy, if a third party manufacturer wanted to include the line "Made specifically for Ford Bronco" on the packaging of their product, Ford would certainly demand a contractual agreement with the manufacturer in order to deal with trademark issues. They might even demand a payment for use of those terms.
The situation with Apple is no different. Apple demands payment for allowing third party manufacturers to use the term "Designed for iPod", almost certainly a trademarked term. With this agreement they also provide some technical specs to properly interface with their product. There is nothing improper with Apple's demands here. Maybe it's bad business sense - or maybe not. *shrug* --M
getting permission is NOT required by moral law. legal laws are completely obscene. and even there, there might be ways of not bending over to corporate interests.
Hah! Your outmoded views on law amuse us.
Moral law? Morality is for pussies! Wealth, that's for the big dogs. Wealth and power. And hot women, because hot women are attracted to Wealth and Power, not morality!
No, we the Corporations are your new Lords. You will bow down before us!
---------
Sorry. couldn't help myself. Sometimes I try to imagine what it must be like, to value yourself so much and others so little that you are willing to fuck over other people for your own gain. It must be great. It must be liberating, to not have to worry about whether you are doing good in the world, or evil. It must be even better when you can blame it all on the nature of the corporation. "They are neither good nor evil; they merely are." That makes it all so tidy, doesn't it?
Someday perhaps we in the US will come back to our collective senses and move back towards personal liberty; but until that day, we can sit back and enjoy the rise of fascism. It's such an entertaining show. And very realistic!
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You mean I have to use iTunes to get music on my iPod? Really!?!? News to me... --M
Having a good product doesn't mean it will be popular. It has to grab the attention of consumers, and it has to have interesting add-ons.
Part of the ipod's success ir probably due to all the neat accessories you can get for it.
If you have a car stereo that lets you plug an iPod into it, then the owner of that stereo will probably choose and iPod. If you don't have an iPod-ready stereo, but notice that the iPod has an fm-transmitter that allows you to send your music to your car stereo, it's a plus for Apple.
If you want to go jogging with an mp3 player, and you see that the iPod has an arm band, but no one else does, it will influence your decision.
All those accessories make money for Apple. They are looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Accessories for things like the iPod and PSP are already grossly overpriced. Plastic iPod cases for $50 CDN (that probably cost about 8 cents to make, and $2 to ship and deliver), $50 CDN arm bands. $7 plastic UMD cases. I wonder if the licensing costs will be passed onto the consumers...
Back in the 1980's, IBM came up with a new bus architecture to replace the aging ISA bus... and they insisted that anyone who wanted to use it pay them for the privilege. PC manufacturers responded by designing their own bus which, tho' inferior, was nonetheless free. A very short time later, IBM was an also-ran in the market that it had dominated for years.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
You'll never be as greedy, controlling or slithery as your master, Bill Gates, so why keep trying?
Apple is just as monopolistic as Microsoft, and always has been. Apple's friendliness with the open-source community is self-serving: Apple just needed a good OS quickly, and a free UNIX-like system was the obvious choice.
At heart, Apple is just another proprietary company, which is saved from being perceived as evil by it's small share of the computer market. (iPod is a different story; the large market share allows the evilness to come out.)
Microsoft is doing a similar thing with their new xbox 360 console. As to whether or not Apple will go the same direction and begin using proprietary hardware ports with lockout mechanisms in the software, remains to be seen.
If it's merely a marketing gimmick (like an "apple approved" product label), then it's not a big deal. But if it's a "pay us or don't play with iPods period" thing, then it's a bit sleazy.
8==8 Bones 8==8
You do, in fact have to pay a fee to put all that after market crap on your car. I know this because I work for Parker Hannifin, which owns Racor filters. We have the contract with Ford/International Truck Engine Company to make all their oil filters and fuel filters. We repackage them for various manufacturers, but they have to buy them all from us. They all have to pay royalties to us if they want to make their own. It's patant law. I think it sucks, too, but that's the way it is. Apple is free to do this and free to tell you it will void your warrantee if you buy a non-royalty part, the same way Ford and John Deere and a whole bunch of others do. And you and I are free to not buy their products.
AC: Nonsense. Do you think generic inkjet cartridge manufacturers get HP's or Epson's permission before telling consumers exactly which make and model printer a specific generic inkjet cartridge works in?
That is a great counterpoint. This gets into legalisms details that I'm not qualified to comment upon. Isn't Cpt Kangarooski a lawyer? Maybe if he notices this thread he (or another lawyer) will comment upon the legalities of Apple's actions with better expertise. --M
The gist of this is not that people can't make products for the iPod or can't use the phrase "for the Apple iPod" but rather that there's a special connector with a proprietary protocol. To get the information for interacting with the iPod, you have to pay to be part of the program. Car stereo manufacturers have been doing this for years (Alpine's Ai-net or Sony's S-Link). Most third-party groups might complain about the price, but paying it puts them in a position to have few competitors. The complaint isn't about the 'tax'. Rather, they're annoyed by the bump in price. An open protocol would make the iPod more popular with end users, but saturate the market with alternative accessories. If the accessory manufacturers can afford to buy in, it's in their best interest to do so and hope the other guy doesn't.
Nobody is telling the manufacturers that they can't develop and sell products for the iPod. Apple just won't help them without compensation. Besides, while popular, Apple hardly has a monopoly on mp3 players.
The iPod is for cornballs.
DUFUS IDEA TO BEGIN WITH...
I have yet to find ONE compelling reason to pay $200 for an iPod; $129 for wi-fi headphones; another $150 for external speaker set; $30 for a armband and $55 for an adaptor. That's absolutely ridiculous. I can buy a nice little 1Gb USB w/ MP3 player built in and then use it everywhere the iPod would go... and still have cash to take my dish out for some sushi.
Apple did the same thing, charging $1 royalty to use the Firewire trademark, which they later dropped to around $0.25 per hardware. In the meantime, Sony branded theirs i.Link, and people used "IEEE 1394" instead.
"You will know when Apple has gained monopoly marketshare when they leverage MacOS X on Intel by forcing iPod users to drop Windows. Somehow, I think Apple demanding certain manufacturing agreements with industry players doesn't quite measure up to a "portable mp3 music player" monopoly. --M"
Add these to your list:
proprietary closed DRM format that no one can license who wants to make a compatible player
no support for DRM formats supplied by competitors who sell music online.
Trying to leverage iPod to cause people to switch from windows is a ridiculous benchmark to determine whether they're a monopoly. In reality, their behavior clearly indicates they're leveraging their mnopolies in online music and mp3 players.
Vote for Pedro
MP/RIAA to Apple pay us our cut.
Apple: Waaaaa waaaaa no you don't get it.
Apple to 3rd party add-on manufacturers pay us our cut.
3rd parties: Stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Then these companies should not use Apple's brand in any way... "made for iPod" (THAT is what this is about... not Apple simply taking money for nothing.)
OK, but remember that there's a legal difference between use of the "MADE FOR IPOD" certification mark and a statement that a product is "Compatible with iPod® media players. (This product is not sponsored or endorsed by the maker of iPod media players.)" The former is a licensable use of a trademark; the latter is free speech, protected in the interest of interoperability.
This is not to excuse Apple, however. I agree its gouging behavior stinks.
One of the biggest themes in software industry failures is a platform vendor that didn't understand that they were a platform vendor, so they alienated their key constituency: the developers.
But one of the pluses of iPods are all the add-on gadgets that make a somewhat stripped down product more useful. And there he is falling into his old trap--Greed. It could be his downfall again. Jobs has yet to learn the importance of sharing the wealth.
OK. So cpt kangarooski (a lawyer) commented on the trademark issue here, arguing that even with a trademark this type of use should fit within trademark fair use. It would appear that I'm wrong. Perhaps Apple is using access to technical specs, logo placement, etc as an inducement to third party developer royalty payments.
I still don't see a moral problem with their action, JMO. And it appears that there's no legal problem with their action either, if I read kangarooski's posts in this forum correctly.
When companies put "intel inside" on their advertisments and play the intel jingle that GET money from intel rather than giving it. But the truth is if they have an intel-inside they already paid for the kickback. It's called co-advertising and it helps bind the companies to Intel. If you are naughty you might not get the nice intel rebate. On the other hand they get the Intel logo on their products and that carries some weight for no-name brands.
In this case companies are not putting ipod's inside so there is no natural conduit for the company to pay dues to apple. But these companies would love to put an apple on threir products. So apple licences the Made for ipod slogan and everyone is happy.
Companies are not obligated to use it but many will see it's value and buy it. What's not to love.
the only thing vaguely evil is that it if it becomes important it could become a way to bind these companies to apple more tightly. Play favorites etc...
But no one ever said apple was a saint. The reason they get more respect than MS is that their products succeed because they are good and merit it. MS succeeds inspite of frequent shoddy products because they are better bussniess men. But being in bussiness itself is not evil.
WRT: Sony - are you arguing that Sony doesn't use similar agreements with third party manufacturers and software developers in their Playstation product line?
When I read this article, the first thing I thought was console manufacturers. All perpheral devices such as controllers, memory cards, light guns, etc. designed and sold for use with console video games have licensing fees built in that get paid to the console maker. Same with the software. Apple is only following the example set way back with the original NES system.
Additionally, consumers will benefit to some extent from licensing for peripherals. These contracts help ensure compatibility with future software revs of the iPod. If a vendor makes anything that intimately interfaces with the iPod other than via the mini-plug jack, Apple could break compatibility in future software updates to the iPod. This wouldn't even necessarily be motivated by evil intentions. Support for legacy devices in interfaces burdens development costs, so companies are always looking for opportunities to remove support for them when convenient. Anybody in QA testing can tell you this.
A licensing agreement with a peripheral vendor locks Apple into supporting their device for X number of years, so consumers won't have to sell their BMW Mini Cooper when it stops controlling their recently-updated iPod through the factory stereo.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
If you really read the article you would have noticed the text box in the second page titled "Bottom's up for iPod":
"In some cases, whole classes of products won't work, such as the voice recorders and remote controls that plugged into the iPod's headphone jack and accompanying port. With other add-ons, such as the transmitters that send the iPod's tunes to a car stereo, the accessory market is divided into winners and losers.
Devices like the original Griffin iTrip won't work, because they require the top port, while others, such as Monster Cable's iCarPlay, are in the clear.
Griffin and others are responding quickly though. Griffin on Monday announced a new version of its AirClick remote that connects to the bottom of the iPod, rather than the top."
That is something that annoys me tremendously about apple and its ipods. You buy an accessory and it might not work with the next line of products. Have you noticed how many accessorises have the label: "Made for ipod generation 1, 2 or 3 or 4". They (apple and the manufacturer of the accessory) expect you to buy it again every few years.
And besides, every single one of them it tremendously overpriced. It seems that white paint has become the new gold.
OK. So at this point the debate can be broken down to these two points:
/. and could actually answer questions like this in detail. My guess is that they don't - but that's just a layperson's guess. *sigh*
a) Does the current iPod marketshare constitute a Monopoly?
b) If so, do Apple's actions in this case constitute abuse of that monopoly?
I've argued that due to the continued survival of Apple's various competitors, they do not have a monopoly - therefore b) is irrelevant. But we're at an impasse because we now have to resolve the factual point of whether Apple's marketshare constitutes a monopoly. That's DOJ turf. I wish more lawyers hung out at
Assuming Apple *does* have a monopoly in the "portable digital music player" market - is what they're doing really wrong? It's a strong arming tactic for sure. But it seems less obnoxious than what Sony and MS do to their partners - and for sure, Sony and MS are much larger with much greater impact on the general market than Apple. ???? (it's a point - if one not based on a consistent application of principle *shrug*) --M
Remember that idiot music executive guy a few weeks ago who thought Apple should kick back some of it's iPod hardware earnings to the recording companies for providing content, even though they already make their money when they sell the content itself? I thought that was a dumb ass thought. Well, sounds like Apples pulling the same crap here. Lame lame lame.
I guess it's just not accepted that a rising tide carries all boats. Gotta try to milk every goddamn thing, take credit for every related achievment. Why don't the ISP's charge the computer makers for providing the driving force behind all the computer sales over the past decade? And heck, why don't the computer makers charge the ISP's right back for providing the machines that have pushed all this broadband adoption. And why don't the farmers get kickbacks from everyone in the world for providing the food so that people don't have to hunt/gather and thus have the spare time to use any of this frivolous technology?
Apple should be happy that they've done well, and allow others to do the same without getting their sticky fingers into it. I don't think they get credit for the whole iPod economy, even if they made the iPod. Heck, I wouldn't have bought one if Dennison hadn't made an iPod -> Prius CD changer hookup. Dennison should charge Apple.
Whatever. Cheers.
The fact that there are plenty of other MP3 players available does not mean that they don't have a monopoly. There are many operating systems available, but that doesn't mean that microsoft doesn't have a monopoly with windows.
Apple is starting to fight to protect the name iPod. You WILL NOT call generic mp3 players "iPods" and they are backing this up legally now to prevent dilution.
Just like when I say I want a 'Coke' when I want a soda? Or when I call a facial tissue a Klennex?
Good luck with that!
-Valiss
They had some weird ideas about Firewire, too.
Applesoft BASIC. Hi-res graphics and DOS routines. How did they work? Apple wouldn't say and you had to pay APDA $300+ to join and get their developer kits and more than that to get the kits which actually partially answered your questions.
Or you could reverse engineer everything by listing the code to a printer and spending a weekend with a case of Coke going over every little bit of it and then improving on it. I think ProntoDOS went along these lines and I don't recall Apple being any happier with Beagle Bros. than they were with anyone else who sold popular software for their platform that didn't bend over for Apple's greedy attitude.
Screw paying Apple a dime to develop anything on their products. What's the point beyond filing Jobs' not inconsiderable wallet? Nothing. And iPod owners should keep that in mind. Buy what you want, not what Apple blesses from on high.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Neither have I, but "podcasting" is a generic word that's clearly derived from iPod. I even use it myself sometimes, though it's misleading: Most podcasts are standard mp3 files, not based on proprietary Apple formats.
So tell me: why I can't legally download music from Audio Lunchbox or Magnatune and play them on my iPod?
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
The Steve, forgetting what made the Apple I & Apple II a success? The ability for third parties to add hardware?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
There are lots here that seem to want to cry, "monopoly" at Apple, to relieve their guilty consciences for living with MS, the monopolistic dragon. I think, the way things go, Apple is selling its accessory manufacturers a service: some engineering help -- how big or small will the Dock being on the 6G iPod, please, and the benefit of putting an endorsement logo on the case or plug or whatever. I would look for that kind of logo, with the assumption that it would be of higher quality than another accessory. In the past few months, to get my iPod to play well in the car, I have bought 6 or 7 assorted cupholders, chargers, firewire cables, etc. A fair number didn't work right, at least not in my car. One car holder worked great, but fell apart in a month. So, if the Apple Certified brings higher quality, I think I would look for that label, frankly. It's sort of like the kosher labels. Why does Planter's peanuts pay the rabbi x dollars a year to pass an inspection and to be able to put the kosher mark on their peanuts? Because it helps with sales among the Jewish community. Not to compare the two things, but isn't this a perfectly valid way of collecting money, while making sure that not too many of your customers buy shoddy merchandise? You can buy non-certified accessories, of course. But watch out, they'll put your eyes out!
Okay ... I have been a huge Apple fan since back in 1987 when I bought my first Macintosh 512ke, but I do know that Apple does make mistakes from time to time.
Right now Apple is fighting the record companies because they want to charge Apple for their music on the iTunes music store. I don't really see the difference between that and what Apple is trying.
Also, why would accessory makers want to continue development of add-ons if this happens? The iPod is a great device (I have two) but it doesn't do everything. That's where the accessory makers really push the iPod over the top. Without them, I probably wouldn't enjoy the iPod experience as much.
Tens of millions, really, and not too many of them.
They're risking one of the biggest advantages the iPod has... the plethora of add-ons... for a tiny fraction of the profits they're making from the iPod.
Did you even RTFA? It said that apple was going to demand that ANY manufacturer that makes something that is for an any ipod pay a license fee. This is unheard of in any other industry out there.
In your example you said that if a company wants to sell after market parts for ford cars out there, they can either pay a license fee to include the ford logo, or they can choose not to and still say it's designed for ford vehicles.
Apple here is basically saying that if you make an acessory for the ipod, you gotta pay them a licensing fee. Now explain why you think apple should be allowed to do this, when no manufacturer in any other industry is doing it. I bet you'd be up in arms if Microsoft demanded a percentage of the sales as a license, of all the software made for windows regardless. Stop your blind devotion to apple and think for once instead of being a lemming.
My Gawd WTF...