Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPod Tax Causes Sour Apples

Posted by Zonk on from the looking-for-pennies-under-the-couch-cushions dept.

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."

5 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. And so it goes by denissmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:And so it goes by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ALCOA kept aluminum prices below market level so that the consumer benefitted. Granted this kept anybody from having the ability to enter the market but it provided the best benefit to the consumer.

    2. Re:And so it goes by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Nature abhors monopolies"

      Au contraire, mon frere. Over time, any given ecological niche will be dominated by one species only. You only find multiple species occupying a niche when that niche changes somehow.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  2. Coin has two sides by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."

  3. Apple is more liberal than camera makers by UR30 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.