Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Chided Over Exclusive Music Idea
grumpyman writes "The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement."
Possible responses from the judge:
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
There's nothing Microsoft could have done. Those low level interns practically run the company.
Somewhere deep in the heart of Redmond.... "Damn those new MBA graduate students! Don't know there head from their @#$hole. Looks like we need to re-evaluate our initial MS obscure wording 101 course"
Civilization, the death of dreams.
Can't get any lower than scapegoat, right?
the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers..." Wow, they let the new coffee getter conference call with Sony by himself? Huh.
It turns out the proposal was made by Bill the Janitor.
Nothing to see, move along, false alarm.
How in the world can they blame the low level worker when it would have to be a management decision. Now are they saying their new management has been stuck under a rock for 5 years? How many people don't know about Microsoft and the monopoly case against them?
I miss the good old days at Microsoft. When we used to just do whatever the hell we wanted, and would write a cheque for the consequences later. :)
My girlfriend got an iRiver for her birthday. She's been happily ripping her 2000+ CD collection (all original, bought and paid for) and putting the songs on it. I asked her the other day if she had to install any special drivers or if the Mp3 player was just a normal USB storage device. Apparently it is "kinda" standard. You can drag an Mp3 off the iRiver onto a machine that has not had special iRiver drivers installed and you'll be able to play it.. but you can't drag any old Mp3 file off the computer and onto the iRiver and expect it to play. You can transport Mp3s like that but you need the iRiver drivers to update the index file. Sigh. Why can't the iRiver extract the song name and artist from the ID3 tags in the Mp3? Why can't it just use the freakin' filesystem instead of using its own index? At least it's better than an iPod.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It was one of those lower level, chair throwing, teeth grinding employees!!
I swear, you can't make this shit up. Show of hands: who here believes a single thing MS says anymore?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This is not a moral judgement anymore... on a technical basis, do they have something I want? yes.
BTW, I reboot my Windows boxes every month or so, whether they need it or not. Just Because.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Shock horror! A company trying to make money. Well I never heard such a far-out thing. Regardless of the tactics used, I'm sure it really isn't going to hurt their market share. I think it's more a case of, lets try it and if we get caught 'bummer' otherwise profit!
lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement...and apparently been living the past 5 years without a tv.....or a newspaper.....or interpersonal contact.......in a box....wearing earmuffs......buried in a 12 foot crater on the other side of mars.
Good thing you went anonymous with that post, otherwise you would have been modded down for dissing Apple (in spite of the fact it's true).
I don't care if I get modded down, so feel free.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
Do hotfixes count?
They are "testing the water" to see how far they can go expanding their grasp without anyone reacting. Next time they will go a little less far and nobody will react etc...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Meh - teach 'em a lesson. Force manufacturers to tether iPods to Microsoft's own music player software :p
Ok, ok - I know it's not fair, not going to happen, and just plain not nice, but imagine the look on Bill's face when that little beauty came zinging his way...The Mothership
Completely different situation. Apple makes the iPod and has every right to limit it to run whatever software it chooses. If MS made the player nobody would have a right to say that it must run other companies' software. The problem here is MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.
Microsoft can't do it because they're a convicted monopolist.
Apple is not, so they can do it.
This is pretty simple. You break the law, you get curtailed rights.
All Steve understands is how to jump around the stage leaping and whooping like a primate. However, apparently that's enough to run Microsoft.
The Mothership
The deal is this: if you had 2000+ albums on your hard drive, it'd take you forever to index them so you had a cool interface with which to access your music.
Now.
Take your desktop computer, with all its resources, and scrunch it down into a device that'll fit into your pocket.
The deal is, it's easier to "cache" the ID3 tags into a "database" (sorry if I'm using technical terms here) and have a small "embedded device" use the database for song information. And, since you need a computer to move those songs over to the embedded device, it's much easier to move the db workload off to the big computer than the small computer.
It really does make sense. It's just a pain the ass for the citizen using the device.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Because Apple didn't get found guilty of illegally using anticompetitive means to keep an existing monopoly and obtain monopoly power in a second market.
I think this has been discussed quite a bit in the past already. Apple can at most be accused of having a monopoly in the mp3-player world, and that's not quite true (there are a lot of competing players in the market, it's just that nobody buys them). They also haven't attempted to kill their competition through monopolistic practices. Their competition survives just fine by using alternative software, and it isn't iTunes or FairPlay that's the cause of the competition's failure to gain any marketshare.
On the other hand, Microsoft has used and still wants to use their monopoly in the OS market to force out competition (OS2) and even in other markets (Netscape).
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Apple is not.
Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position, but until they are dragged into court on anti-trust violations and have business practice restrictions placed upon them, like Microsoft, they are free to do as they please. Microsoft reached an agreement that restricted what they could and could not do in the market place with their products, this means other companies are free to create vertically integrated product lines that Microsoft cannot emulate.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
Isn't this precisely what Apple is doing with iPod + iTunes?
I guess you forgot about the HP branded iPod. Truth of the matter is, anyone can build an iPod and offer music encoded with Apple's DRM, as long as they play by Apple's rules. Unfortunately most companies find Apple's design specs too restrictive, and lisencing too expensive. But they make great equipment that is highly desirable, and offer an end-to-end solution with the iTunes store, iTunes, and the iPod. If you want part of their 75% market share, you are going to have to play by their rules, which means small margins, and high royalties.
If I may speculate about what might have been...if Winamp had focused on selling songs, and got Rio to make mp3 players that linked up to their software, we would be living in a totally different world right now.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
why can Microsoft not compete in exactly the same way?
I'm sure this has got to be redundant by now, but what the hell, at least I'll pile on...
Did you happen to notice WHO it was that Microsoft was explaining their error to? You know, the judge who ruled over the trial in which MS was convicted for illegal abuse of monopoly power?
When Apple gets convicted of illegal abuse of monopoly power, then you might have a point.
Note that simply having a monopoly (as Apple does with the portable music player market where they hold more than 90% marketshare) does not equate to abuse of that monopoly power.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No, because Apple isn't twisting the arm of hardware manufacturers to use their software. You buy an Ipod from Apple and it comes with Apple Software. It the same as if you bought a Sony MD, you're be expected to use Sony software (sonicstage was perhaps the worst piece of junk ever i might add). This is clearly not the same as Microsoft (a software company, OK they do make keyboards) saying to Creative or whomever is creating the devices that they have to use WMP.
I could see the truth if I was blind.
Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement.
Let's say that for a new hire, the guy knows a lot about Microsoft tactics already... he only failed one test: never get caught!
Because Apple didn't get found guilty of illegally using anticompetitive means to keep an existing monopoly and obtain monopoly power in a second market.
That's only becaues Apple neglected to actually obtain a monopoly before acting like one.
Not at all. The point of the article is, Microsoft, because of past abuses, currently (until 2007) has more restrictions against them than most companies. Something like this:
The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as "easy start," would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
is a violation of their punishment - much like if a person on parole can't hang out w/ convicted felons, but a regular person can
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Microsoft can't do it because they're a convicted monopolist.
Not to split hairs, but Microsoft has never been "convicted" of being a monopoly. Being a monopoly is not, in itself, illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly position in one market to extend it to others. This is illegal as there are many laws preventing monopolies from engaging in such behaviour.
As you point out, Apple is not in the same position and as such, they're not restricted by these laws, neither are they bound to conditions imposed by previous lawsuits.
To the grandparent poster -- it would be nice if everyone were treated equally, but there are many cases where this is not so. Convicted murderers get confined to jails, monopolies that abuse their monopoly position have fines, and restrictions imposed on what kind of business they can engage in.
Not from how I interpret it. The main difference between the two is that Apple owns iTunes, iPod, and the music store, while Microsoft only owns its Media Player and the operating system. If Apple wants to restrict their iPod to only their product, it's their choice. If Bob makes an MP3 player that will only load music from BobSongs Music Player, it's his choice; he controls both, and that decision is made by him. In either case, if people don't want to use the designated music loader, then they shouldn't buy the music player. Alice has no right to go to Bob and force him to change his product to use only her music player.
In other words, if Microsoft makes a music player of their own, then they can restrict it to only using WMP. But they shouldn't be able to force other MP3 player manufacturers to only use WMP, even though Microsoft controls the operating system.
No.
Steve Ballmer is not a stupid man. He fully understands that his ability to dance around a stage like a primate, and to toss company furniture around, and to make death threats against other individuals; and generally behave anti-socially and immaturely and in a manner that would get regular folks like you and I slapped in gaol rests solely on the fact he has made an arse-load of money via his company's illegally-obtained monopoly - and gotten away with it all to the point where the arguably strongest government in the world won't touch him or his criminal organisation.
You'd be dancing around too with that kind of injustice^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgood fortune.
Matt
Fantastic ... Would same judge please slap Microsoft silly for the BS it is currently pulling in regards to the OpenDocument format?
FTA: "Microsoft abandoned the idea after a competitor protested."
How many questionable actions have slipped through because the competitors have been strong-armed (due to business relations with MS) or bought off?
This happens to be an area where MS has valid competition who have a large interest in making sure MS doesn't leverage their OS dominance... what happens in areas where the competition doesn't have the legal resources to monitor MS & to file complaints?
Not to bash MS, but really now... Gates & co are making a good case for the idea that they need to be monitored past 2007, and that perhaps the previous settlement wasn't enough.
The fact of the matter is that whether it was Gates or Ballmer or some new lackey, they were acting in official capacity as an employee of MS. It is the responsibility of those in charge to make sure no one in the organization could take illegal action. And should the court take action (which the judge said she won't), the execs at MS should be held liable by their shareholders.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, they would say that, woudn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies
(with apologies to The Simpsons")
Homer: Now Bill if you get in trouble, just blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah Tibor, how many times have you saved my butt?
Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position
Explain how Apple can exclude competitords from the market, then.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I am a service tech with Siemens on the Redmond Microsoft campus. We do all of their desktop support so I see A LOT of the normal day to day happenings that go on around this place. Ever since I've been here, all I've seen are people doing everything they can to make the most feature-filled, least buggy, most compatible software they can. I know for certain that the team working on Microsoft Operations Manager has in the last week broken several barriers that they were working on.
My point is that Microsoft is not the immense evil company that they are made out to be. The people that work here are not trying to rip you off. They are not sabotaging their software. They take pride in thier work. We have copies of different linux builds lying around and some people even use Macs here. Seeing the way things work here, when Balmer says he has not thrown a chair, I believe him. Every last employee and most vendors here have IMMENSE amounts of freedom in their jobs. Microsoft hires people that present an air of trustworthyness. They want to be able to hire people, assign them a task, and be confident that the person they hired will be able to complete the task in the most efficient and responsible way possible.
In reference to this article that obviously did not happen. Somebody was entrusted with a certain amount of authority and they misused it. Please realize that Microsoft as a company is not some huge evil organization out to rape your wallets. They are regular people who want to, like anyone else, do the best job they can.
White House pressures Congress to reject torture amendment.
And what songs was Winamp going to sell? The big content owners were busy fighting new distribution methods at that point. Furthermore, they certainly weren't interested in selling MP3s - still aren't.
Sure - the big guys aren't the whole show. But independants have been early adopters of MP3s; a format that plays in Winamp and the Rio. And what's the big news? iTune because Apple has managed to either bring the big media to the table, or at least provide a table where they'll sit at the right time... or perhapse both.
IANAL, etc.
Why not:
Anti-Virus
Anti-Spyware
Firewall
The typical statements are:
1) Anti-spware; there is just no clear leader in the market
2) Firewall; its not full fledge product
3) A/V not sure what the rational is here. There are market leaders and its going to be a full fledge product.
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft really has lost the ability to compete on merits of software. I think that many of their current policies may expose them to far more dangerous antitrust litigation in the future including all those you just mentioned. IANAL though.
I think that the changes in SP2 regarding better protection against ActiveX controls could have bit into the antispyware market, but that is quite defensible in terms of improving one's product. That seems to me to be clearly on the right side of the line. However, bundling antispyware solutions with Windows (via WIndows Update) seems to be questionable at best. Personal firewalls are another area where there is good question (though Microsoft's personal firewall isn't that great of a product).
In both of these cases, however, it could be argued (unsuccessfully, I think) that because most of this software is given away as a loss leader or integrated into antivirus software, that there is no such thing as a personal firewall or antispyware market. This might be sufficient to handle such complaints (remember that the appeals court found that the DoJ had not made a case that there was such a thing as a web browser market and hence overturned part of the judgement against Microsoft on these grounds). But I don't know. If there is a dispute about whether a market exists, I would expect that to be an issue of fact and a matter for a jury. If I were Microsoft, I would not want to allow for a jury trial in such a case.
None of these arguments work in the antivirus area. And it is quite possible that this is an area that Microsoft is going to get sucked into quite to their detriment.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If MS made the player nobody would have a right to say that it must run other companies' software. The problem here is MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.
If there was sufficient competition in the market, nobody would care if "MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software."
The problem occurs when someone who has monopoly power in a major part of the platform industry tries to use that power to strong-arm third parties into restricting their choice to monopoly products.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You're comparing apples to oranges. From the article:
A proper comparison would be to note that Apple requires Apple to bundle iTunes with sales of the iPod and other devices Apple sells. Which, I suppose, they do.... since it's all one company. But this is hardly your point.
Your confusion is over the content offered on iTunes. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with content. Would you care to point out where content providers are required to enter an exclusive contract with Apple to make that content only available via iTunes? Or perhapse where the Judge found objections to the Windows Media format?
(a software company, OK they do make keyboards)
And.. Mice, Trackball, Fingerprint readers, Wifi cards, Routers (several kinds), Ethernet adapters, Joysticks (many types)...
For a software company they sure make a shitload of hardware!
"If there was sufficient competition in the market, nobody would care if "MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.""
Funny thing is, if you look at the numbers on MP3 player sales and pay-for-download music, nobody does care.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly. A monopoly is when their is only one provider in a marketplace. So in some territories Apple holds a market share an order of magnitude larger than its nearest competitor, and Apple might abuse that monopoly like position.
I could have chosen a variety of words,
Apple could abuse that position,
Apple should abuse that position,
Apple wants to abuse that position,
Apple is likely to abuse that position,
Apple wishes they could abuse that position,
Apple won't abuse that position,
Apple can't abuse that position,
Apple is packed with floppy haired liberals who wouldn't dare abuse that position.
But really all I was saying was that Apple might hold what looks like a monopoly position but until they loose (or settle) an anti-trust case they are free to do as they please in the market place, unlike Microsoft.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
"Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position"
Which territories?
" and Apple might abuse that position"
How?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I used to work at Microsoft. I started out as a temp and was eventually hired full time. I have worked in PSS, and apprenticed in other departments such as testing. I as also deeply involved in many competitive discussions regarding Linux, etc. Indeed, over two years after I quit, I am still seeing the effects of suggestions I made to high-level competitive managers while I worked there.
Pretty much every thing you say is true. To a point. It is true that Microsoft is a place where one can generally have a lot of freedom on how you do your job and you only find out once a year that the management thinks several of your most important contributions were wastes of time (a more common complaint than you might think), and that in general, it was a fairly satisfying place to work. It is true that people take a lot of pride in their work, and that most of the people there, especially those in product development, are primarily interested in making quality software, though whether they succeed or not is another question.
The problem, however, is that there is also an odd sense of mean-spiritedness which exists as a hidden undercurrent at the company. It does not come out in every employee, and I think that the GM of my department through most of the time I was there was probably the least mean-spirited guy I have enver seen in any company, but it is a part of the corporate culture. You would not believe how many Microsoft employees might ordinarily vode democrat but voted to elect Sen. Gordon simply because Cantwell was coming from a competing company (Real Networks). Never mind the fact that she might actually understand the industry. One guy even told me that he could not in good conscience vote to elect an executive from a competitor to public office. And you would not beleive the flack I got because before I was hired, I had migrated my parents to a Linux desktop and did not want to bring them back into the fold of Microsoft software (yes they still run Linux, and no they are not nerds or techies).
Similarly, the level of mean-spiritedness I watched seemed to go up as one ascended the management chain though there were plenty of exceptions. I knew several people who ended up in GM positions who really were great people to work for and with, and were entirely procompetitive. Sadly I also saw many more people who were fundamentally meanspirited (even if they did not at first appear this way) who were promoted as well.
Now, I was not ill-informed as to the nature of this aspect of Microsoft corporate culture when I was hired. I had read essentially all of the court documents both regarding Caldera v. Microsoft and USDoJ v. Microsoft. And I largely accepted the employement at first due to the fact that I did not have another job lined up when my term came to an end. In other words, it was clear to me that a large percentage of senior execs (including Gates and Ballmer) were of this category of employees, and that this was a large part of what catylized this attitude in the company.
During my time at Microsoft, I worked tirelessly to improve Microsoft software and business practices. My contributions were nearly all procompetitive. Among ideas first floated by me:
1) One has to stop thinking of Exchange and Sendmail as competitors (as a result of this email, a POP3 server was added to Windows Server 2003).
2) If you are going to Linuxworld, at least take the one product (SFU) that Linux guys might find interesting.
3) SFU should ship with the operating system.
4) If you can't provide SSH, at least provide a telnet server which uses Kerberos to encrypt the session (don't know the status on this one, but I believe it may be forthcoming)
I don't know where my other suggestions so I will not mention them here. However, I will say that I had suggested a very aggressive competitive approach aimed at materially reducing the number of safe markets for Linux and FreeBSD. I would not be surprised if Microsoft continues to impliment other suggestions I made.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Excellent. Very interesting and very well written.
I have an iPod. I've never purchased a song from the iTMS. I do use iTunes on my Mac, but I could use it on a Windows machine if I wanted to. Yes, I do have to use iTunes to put music on my iPod, but Apple gives that away free. So what is it that they're using their dominance of the portable music player market to force me to use? The free software they gave me?
The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."
Well, now we know the ethnicity of the low-level intern.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly.
It absolutely is. If you can't exclude competitors, then they will come, so long as your market is profitable. The very essence of monopoly is that you can set the price higher than market rates and increase your overall profit. In order to do that, you must prevent the other guy from undercutting you, as they would in a free market.
Apple is packed with floppy haired liberals who wouldn't dare abuse that position.
Who are these liberals? I'm liberal, but I'm not an idiot. If I had a monopoly, I would certainly milk it, but even monopolies can't go too far - the higher your rents, the more incentive to make you irrelevant.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
There is competition for iTunes. There is competition for the iPod. It's entirely possible to use iTunes to buy music that doesn't go to an iPod at all, and it's entirely possible to use an iPod with someoen else's service.
Last time i checked the iPod was then only device that could play AAC DRM files. That's pretty monopolistic.
That's a pretty lame ass defense they put forward. The could have, at the very least, tried some version of the Chewbacca Defense
You must have forgotten about MSAV. It existed and now it doesn't. I don't know why they dropped it but I suspect that there were two main reasons:
1) They couldn't compete. An AV company must be able to release new signatures within hours. MS can't make a pot of coffee in less than a month.
2) Liability. Right now MS can release any crap they want and argue that it was the customer's fault that their system picked up 6 worms and 2 backdoors in 20 minutes. By shipping MSAV, they acknowleged in a measurable way that their software was insecure and may have made themselves more liable for failing to produce a secure product.
I still haven't seen anyone with an iPod, but I've had a Neuros and I know someone with an Archos. Unless you're being paid to publicize that one company's antiquated product (fuckin' A, it can't even play modern codecs like Vorbis), then there's no reason to shill for it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"You are smoking crack."
No crack.... you're just confused.
"The iPod and iTunes are as anti-competitive as it gets."
Not at all... watch as I destroy your whole argument.
"The hardware is completely closed and no third party software can run on it."
That's not anticompetitive... Apple creates the whole product. You might as well go after radio manufacturers (for example) for not allowing other companies to automatically be suppliers for their knobs and buttons. If you create the entire product (hardware and software) you can include as much or as little as you want with it. If Windows could be used to the exclusion of PC hardware... then they would be allowed to bundle as much as they want without concern of leveraging their illegal monopoly.
"There are also a limited number of codec's that work with the iPod."
Actually, the iPod is pretty much on par with all other music players with regard to the number of codecs it can play.
"The only thing that you can do is play AAC, MP3 and DRM'd apple music on it."
Wrong. The iPod can play songs encoded with these CODECS:
MP3 (from 32 Kbps to 320 Kbps)
MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
AIFF *
WAV (with no compression)
The following require iPod software 1.3 or later:
M4A AAC *
M4P AAC (Protected) *
M4B AAC (iTunes Music Store Spoken Word files) *
The following require iPod software 2.2 or later or iPod mini 1.1 or later:
Apple Lossless Encoder
* Requires iTunes 4 or iTunes 4 for Windows. AAC files also require the most recent update to the iPod software.
"It is a black box. It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music."
Its a Black box... and of course also a white one... and no it does not enforce DRMpractices on non-DRM music.
"Apple chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only apple products to access the iTunes music store - No iPod, no iTunes."
Motorola chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only motorola LCD displays in their phones. No Motorola LCD display, no motorola phone.
Whirlpool chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only Whirlpool dish soap dispensers in their dish washers. No Whirlpool dishsoap dispenser, no Whirlpool dish washer.
Sony chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only sony buttons on their stereos. No Sony buttons, no Sony radio.
See how ridiculous your argument is? Apple creates the entire product the same way that these other companies do. Because Apple also happens to compete in a market that is largely comprised of multiple vendors each contributing a small part in a piecemeal approach to any given technological solution does not mean they are required to do so under any law as you're implying... be it legal or ethical.
"It is a monopoly now - because Apple currently has a majority of the mp3 player market share, and a 100% monopoly on music encoded in an Apple DRM format."
Keep in mind... its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its illegal to use your monopoly illegally. Apple is not doing anything that excludes competitors to enter into the market. Microsoft's spotty history is rife with this sort of behavior throughout its history. They didn't achieve their monopoly legally... and they certainly haven't maintained it legally. Apple on the other hand achieved their monopoly in the market through hard work and innovation. They are maintaining it by doing the same repeatedly.... over and over again.
"They are also actively discouraging 3rd parties from interfacing with their hardware and software (real player)."
And there's nothing illegal or unethical about that.
"Thus, they are using their monopoly advantage to exclude competition in the market of players that can play AAC/DRM formatted music."
No, any company can use the AAC codec and can attach DRM to the fo
I call BS.
People get what they buy. I want it to play mp3s and i'm not interested in WMA. Similarly, my hard disk tv recorder plus DVD-RW, supports only a few formats, but doesn't support DIVX for instance. I still bought it, because i know what i want.
I bought an Xbox, and darn, it only plays Xbox games! What a closed system it is! As said, people get what they buy. And you may want to check up on why Microsoft got convicted for using its monopoly and then checking if this holds for OS X? Or for the iPod. And you quote for instance iMac thermal problems. Product recalls happen. Sony customers know about that (see for instance a recent
How much of that crap does MS actually MAKE vs. have made for them and just branding it?
"They also haven't attempted to kill their competition through monopolistic practices."
Wait a minute. Apple has extended their de-facto monopoly on portable music players (how the got it is unimportant) to a near-monopoly on music software (iTunes) and a music download service (iTMS).
This is EXACTLY what Microsoft is often trashed for. Microsoft used their near-monopoly on operating systems to attempt to corner the browser market. If you want Windows, you get IE.
Apple is doing the same thing. If you want an iPod, you get iTunes. If you want to buy music for your iPod (from major labels), iTMS is the only legal online download source for your iPod. And once you buy that music, the iPod is the only portable player that can play those tunes without jumping through hoops to burn CDs.
The result? iTMS is the #1 store. And iTunes is the #1 music software. If consumers were given the freedom to choose where to buy their tunes from, you can bet that tracks wouldn't be selling for $0.99. A competitive marketplace encourages lower prices, better service, and better quality. Apple's lock-in has prevented that.
Whatever you think of WMA-DRM, the fact is that there are hundreds of different devices from many companies that play it. You don't have to use MSN Music. You don't have to use a Creative player. Hell, with RealPlayer or Yahoo! Music, you don't even have to use Windows Media player.
Who's using their monopoly to stifle competition now?
It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music.
In what way?
Take for example the difficulty in getting Linux to run on Mac hardware,
Ever heard of YDL, the official supplier of Linux on Apple hardware? There are a few different versions of Linux on PPC (ie Apple hardware).
Then they *actively* discouraged other vendors and companies from interfacing with their software and seemingly refused to grant licenses at a reasonable rate - they would probably be taken to court. As it is, there are a variety of WMV capable players out there and a number of music services that utilize the format for content delivery.
This is interesting behaviour, and I believe it's been prompted by the experiences of Steve Jobs in the past, at Apple and at Next, seeing better technology crushed by the MS juggernaut and forced out of the market by any means necessary (legal or not). If Apple had opened the iPod to WMA, that would be the default format now and MS would rule online music. If they had opened Fairplay and allowed others to use it, MS would have co-opted it with their own 'good enough' free software player and extended it (thus becoming the default implementation of Fairplay). Look at what happened to Sun, who licensed Java to MS only to see it knifed.
So now Apple are playing the same kind of hard game back, and choosing the moment to open the service. I imagine eventually they'll open it up to other players, once they are assured that MS can not try to co-opt the standard. If Apple don't and they end up with a monopoly of online music and try to force other players out of the market, I hope they get sued.
My point in all of this is that Mac users have to put up with this, and Apple has no market force to correct it. The reason? Apple has a monopoly on the Mac.
If Mac users don't like their software they can always change to Linux or Windows (on another machine). Most people change OS when they change machines, and at no other time. And yeah, market forces have done a lot to correct the problems with Windows and Office haven't they? Things are so much better on that side of the fence (cough). Our model of capitalism doesn't remotely approximate a free and rational market, why talk as if it does? Will a free and rational market ever exist? Lastly, a monopoly in itself is not evil or illegal, the abuse of a monopoly to dictate conditions in other markets is illegal and evil.
the radio/button analogy is stupid. a closer analogy is sony tvs letting u only play movies from the sony label or home movies, not from anyone else. the majority of the rest of your arguments are blind faith. if you own shares, i can understand your defense. otherwise, it makes no sense to religion out of a company.
while i agree with a lot of the things you said.. you are pretty much waving a cowboys banner at a redskins game (football teams for those of you who never leave /.)
i wonder if microsoft is technically owned by a canary.
in case the reference is lost on you:
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/news/news.php?id=393
Asok works at Microsoft? I wasn't aware of that...
Georg
They actually make the MN700 WiFi router...you can tell because it loses WAN connection every two hours, drops wifi every three thousand packets, and has no extensibility.
Luckily you can put Linux on it.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
So if the anti-trust suit had never happend this would have been perfectly acceptable to "higher-level business persons"?
The quote says more than I think they intended.
-Coach
"Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
Errr... No one forced me to get iTunes, no one locked me out of switching back to Winamp after trying it. I discovered that is was a superior product (don't even mention WMP). It was superior, I kept it. Seems very free market. If they become #1 for this, GOOD! This is how things should work, superior products win, this is good, as long as they don't do something illegal to do so, OR leverage people to their product by nerfarious means, like locking out competition.
Last time I checked there are several competeing software players.
Ditto with the iPod (which I got after to switching to iTunes and iTMS because of their superiority to the rest of the feild) after trying several other players (granted, not HD ones, only flash), I found the iPod a better investment. Simple. Stable. No tweaking needed. Thus I buy an iPod, others feel the same way and do the same. Apple becomes #1 in portable music players, great, free market at work again. Superior product. No one forced me to pick and ipod over a x. iTunes did not shut me out from getting a different player, since I could let iTunes handle music, and a combination of directory tree, software, and jHymn handle putting music on my x.
So far we have two choices, dictated by a superior (as perceived by the public) product, within a free market. Sorry if this principle leads to a conclusion that you do not agree with, blaim the free market. In NO WAY IS APPLE LEVERAGING THEIR PRODUCT TO MONOPOLY LIKE MSFT. They made it easy, they made is elogent, they made it better, and people use it, but are free to choose otherwise with no difficulty.
And iTMS does not interupt the free market in any way, since THERE is competition, granted not for the iPod, but if it became viable to switch (if iTMS stopped being the superior service), people CAN. The iPod is not a permanent attachment to your body.
It's like saying Apple has an OS monopoly, then citing that OS X only runs on Macs (yeah, I know it runs on x86 with tweaking too). It's an inane statement, since people CAN buy a PC with Windows/Lunux/BeOS/etc very easily, choice still exists, with relatively few (non-economic) restrictions.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Because of their market size, Apple have secured volume discounts on flashram chips that allow them to sell their iPod nano player at a price lower than than any competitor can reach. Scale also gives Apple a R&D advantage where their fixed development costs makeup a smaller proportion of the per player cost. Now Apple has a market advantage based on both product style and price point, all without excluding competitors from entering the market, but they wont be able to undercut the iPod.
A Monopoly is where their is only one supplier of a good or service, a monopoly is impossible in a true market economy but "near monopoly" and "monopoly like" situations are entirely possible, Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the OS market, but they were still found guilty of abusing their monopoly status. The closer Apple gets to 100% of the mp3 player market the closer they will be to a true monopoly, the only point of contention is where do you draw the line between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like".
Nice of you to take that quote out of context, they were all examples of things I could have said but didn't all of which could be taken to mean different things by different people (which you demonstrated oh so well). What I said was that apple might abuse their position, and I clarified what I meant by the word might.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%, they claim to own an 80% share of the Legal Music download market, it is impossible for a true monopoly to exist in a true market economy which is why I used the term "monopoly like". The only difference between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like" is where you draw the line, 70% of the market with 30 competitors holding 1% each, 85% of the market with 5 competitors sharing 3%, 95% with 1 competitor.
I decided to set the bar low.
Is the how important? The point I was making is that at some point some where some how apple could attempt to abuse their monopoly like position, unlike Microsoft their is nobody with the legal authority to step in and stop them. I was not saying this would be desirable, or that Apple will make us all line up, bend over and grab our ankles before listening to our music, but that their is always the possibility that somebody somewhere might attempt to abuse it.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
"By making the Judicial Branch a part of Microsoft, we hope to offer our customers unsurpassed customer service. This is a good thing," says Bill Gates.
The Admin and the Engineer
You keep saying that Apple has a monopoly on the Mac as if that means something.
Every single manufacturer has a 'monopoly' on the products they manufacture. That's not a surprise, it's an issue of poor definition.
Who else makes Macs? No-one. Is that bad? Only in the exact and precise same manner as in the cases of Ford cars, GMH cars, Sony Walkmans, Reebok sneakers, Bonds underwear and pretty much anything out there. You'll notice that any one of those examples has many other replacements, as does Apple's Macintosh. You can choose to go PC instead, and run PC software.
The choice is not an Apple Mac or nothing. It's down to what personal computer you want to use - an Apple Mac or a HP PC or a Dell PC or a homebuilt PC or...
There's absolutely no meaningful or useful definition of monopoly that includes the Macintosh, unless you can somehow show that a company with 3-5% of the marketshare is somehow controlling the purchasing decisions of the other 95-97%.
Apple have had some quality control issues, just as every other manufacturer since the beginning of time has had. That's not shocking or newsworthy though, because it continually reports better than any other personal computer manufacturer out there. Consumer reports keep rating Apple well every year and customers keep being (obstinately, you'll probably think) happy with Apple.
My current Mac, an iBook, has had chronic issues in the past eighteen months. My homebuilt PC has been fine though. And yet I keep using the Mac because it's better to use. I'm more productive with it, and it fits better into my daily life.
Truth be told, it's the first Mac I've had (since 1991) with any issues worth mentioning. I've owned a number of PCs in that time with issues though, so quality control is a positive for Apple in my experience.
And that's what your post boils down to - personal experience and opinion. No more valid than mine, but in both cases we have to bow before things like those positive consumer reports and the fact that Apple haven't been taken to court as an anti-competitive monopoly.
Which is something you have to admit. Apple are not a monopoly in any sense worth mentioning. Not a legal sense and certainly not a sense with any sanity behind it. But hey! Apple haters don't need logic! Apple are doomed! They're probably beleagured or something. The fact that they're doing well and people like them is too much for some people, who can't seem to handle any competition with their chosen platform.
No. More like: Read someone other than Ballmer.
I'll collect my winnings later.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Wow, how ridiculous...
We all know only Apple can do things like this, and get praise for doing it at the same time...
iTunes anyone?
Not DRM that the iPod can read. Apple's DRM can only be used by ITMS, they have refused to licence it to third parties. Weren't they trying to legislate against Rhapsody (or something like that?) for selling DRMed content that the iPod could play?
MS's credibility = 0. eom.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Bill Gates privately commended his new padawan.
"I do want to know how this happened," the judge said. "It seems to me at this late date, we should not have this occur." She did not indicate she plans to punish Microsoft, but her comments were remarkable because she generally praises efforts by the company and government under the settlement."
I hope they get the book thrown at them and not just a lecturing. They need some kind of punishment.
If what they say is true then they should not have low level people doing this work, but I doubt it is true. this is typical microsoft and it is a pattern and they are just playing with the court system because they are a cash cow for the government.
> The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business
> practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal
> to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to
> Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed
> the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person"
> who did not understand the company's obligations under
> the antitrust settlement.
This points out well why Microsoft can't be trusted in these anti-trust settlements. Microsoft's view is that proposals like this are only a problem in that they violate the anti-trust settlement terms. In reality, they are a problem in that they violate the intent of the anti-trust laws.
MS expects its employees to work tirelessly to skirt the edge of the anti-trust laws, and build up its defacto monopoly. They can't accept into the corporate culture that attempting to force use of MS software through restrictive licensing agreements is not an acceptable business practice, -even if- you can do it without contravening the strict letter of the law.
Frm the referenced article: 'The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."'
I would not describe it as a "chink"; I would describe it as a gap in which Microsoft is unwilling to comply with any settlement agreement to any greater degree than they can be compelled to by threat of force.
'"This is an issue that Microsoft is concerned showed up," Rule said. He added that Microsoft regrets the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers and that the company was "looking at it to make sure this is a lesson learned."'
Unfortunately, from Microsoft's point of view, the lesson they seem to want to impress on the employees is, "thou shalt not get caught", where the court wants them to learn to alter their business practices to prohibit these kinds of restrictive agreements.
"lower-level business person"
So this person's higher level supervisior didn't know what this guy was doing? Shouldn't he be reported to someone?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
For one thing, Apple is not a convicted monopolist. For another, Apple is not trying to use it's market position to force anybody to do anything. If you don't like buying a closed system, then don't buy an iPod. For the record, I won't buy Apple products because of their closed nature, the only Apple product that I have ever purchased was an Apple //e.
So what if Apple has a monopoly on the Mac? Sun has a monopoly on Sparc servers and GMC has a monopoly on Cadillacs. Apple, Sun, and GMC can't use their market position to try to force anybody to use a Mac, Sparc, or Cadillac because people are free to use other computers or to use other cars.
If Apple produces a product that has a problem, such as the iPod Nano scratching problem, there are consumer laws in place that can be used to seek remedy. Also, why are people still buying iPod Nanos when it is pretty well known that the Nano's have a problem with the window scratching?
WTH black and blue on black for headers?!
Were that I say, pancakes?
Well, if the Justice Department had done it's job, this criminal monopoly would not be in existence to perpetrate such acts. Oh, and by the way and while you're at it Judge K-K, would you mind pokin' yer nose into the Massachussets legislature and ask a few questions about why there's a sudden surge of political unrest regarding the MA State IT department adopting OpenDoc Format over Monopoly Office Suite product formats, even though this is "an administrative matter that's not subject to legislative proceedings?" Maybe a little behind the scenes political brib... ahem, er.. manip... no, lobbying is taking place on behalf of said criminal monopoly?
Thanks.
"Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly FIRED, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement.""
You know, when you're new to it all and shy about asking and you kind of hedge your bets.
"Ha ha ha. No, I'm just kidding."
"...unless you think it's a good idea, that is."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Only because MS is trying to bully OTHER companies into using WMP. To parallel the Apple example, if Microsoft built an iPod-like device, made it play Windows Media files (but also mp3s) and gave you WMP with the device, I doubt they'd have gotten the judicial naughty-naughty.
Then at what point can neglect or inaction be called sabotage, if the result is the same? MS products still have ongoing problems with their support of protocols like TCP/IP, HTTP, and Kerberos. And with releasing documentation for their APIs, or even with the implementation of the API itself, such as with ODBC. These are problems that just happen to hinder or block competitors. No. It must be a coincidence.
MS has worked hard to earn the poor reputation it has in the tech community. For years it has engaged in anti-competitive, predatory practices and chronically made shoddy software that usually underperforms the nearest competitor by a long shot.
Pardon us for learning from experience.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The little RCA MP3 player seems to have handled all of that just fine with none of the negatives you list with a cheaper device , iRiver shouldn't be cut any slack on that regard.
Sorry, it doesn't work for me.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%"
And they're maintaining their barrier to entry, how? Oh right, they're not. Microsoft is. See above.
"Is the how important?"
Uh, yeah.
" unlike Microsoft their is nobody with the legal authority to step in and stop them"
Who's stopping Microsoft? You remember, the people who have actually been found by a court of law to maintain and extend an illegal monopoly?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I'm constantly amazed that in graduate level management classes it is still taught that low-level employees should be thrown away like a used tissue. I never occurs to them that a 'disposable' employee is a rare asset to the company.
This is because the company can use the disposable employee to take charge of special projects that have the potential of bringing the company a lot of money if successful but can be safely fired and covered up if the project doesn't work out. Usually the disposable employee is young, unmarried, and without children and other dependents. They are often bored, smart, well-trained, under-utilized, and restlessly willing to do something out-of-the-box or even extreme.
Traditionally taught management dictates that these people be just tossed away. But this is crazy because these employees give you the ability to reinvigorate your company with special risky projects with the minimum amount of exposure to bad consequences. If it doesn't work out, you can blame it all on a 'low-level new employee unaware of legal agreements invoked before their hire', as Microsoft has done in this case. If it does work, cover the illegal aspects and promote the 'low-level employee' who took the risk and made it work. In other words, give them health insurance and job security.
This is quite Machiavellian. Nevertheless, all large corporations are Machiavellian and these strategies should be taught in graduate-level business school.
They made a proposal that would've allowed consumers to get any player they wanted and just use one peice of software for any of them. If it weren't for the fact that there were competing products, this could've been a good thing for the music player manufactureres. The player manufacturers might've been perfectly okay with it, but developers of competing software would not be.
One aspect that wasn't mentioned about Apple is vendor lock-in. In a couple of years, it is conceivable that some fantastic new type of MP3 device from another company will come out that lots of iPod users will want to switch to. When Joe the iPod user realises he has bought over $2000 worth of music from iTunes and he can't change to a non-Apple MP3 player because he can't play his music, he's going to be very annoyed. The majority of the population do not understand what DRM music and vendor lock-in means as they are merrily purchasing their MP3s from iTunes. This problem really needs to be addressed as Apple is selling the most downloaded music around and every track sold means they tighten their grip on the MP3 downloads/player market. Perhaps you could argue that they are leveraging their MP3 downloads market into the MP3 player market? Each product should be strong enough to compete on their own without this vendor lock-in to help as this hurts product quality and price for customers (they can't buy, say, cheaper DRMed MP3s from somewhere else because they can't play them and they can't switch music player because they can't play their current collection).
By the way, is there any need to write a one paragraph reply to every sentence from the OP? You should be able to articulate your position without having to do this; it's just excessive to take each sentence out of context and try to rip it to pieces. It looks like your trolling.
It would obviously benefit the consumers as well as us who work in this industry if everyone small- and medium-sized wasn't afraid to go near the 900lb. gorilla in the room for fear it will sneeze out a legal document. Microsoft has successfully established itself as the "safe" choice both for corporations as well as uninformed consumers. Microsoft is after all the new IBM, and they are seemingly too big for even a coalition of competitors to gang up against.
Did something go wrong along the way?
Part of the problem is you guys. Yes, you. YOU have not fought management enough on their mindless devotion to Microsoft BizTalk, Outlook and Exchange Server. YOU have not spent enough weekends building a kickass app using open-source tools that you could use to prove your faith to management or the client or both. YOU have failed to convince your Windows-using friends to try anything else, even though they still go to you for Windows assistance. YOU know how hard it is for them to get past that mental block, so go ahead and put your money where your mouth (and heart) is and lend them a used or rebuilt machine for a while. YOU, the army of independent thinkers, of underdog fans, of any thought or decision that looks too lemming-like, you PHB despisers and abhorrers of the status quo... need to not only hold your ground, but advance! (Disclaimer: I'm not just all talk- I just quit my decent-paying, Microsoft-technology-focused and totally-time-consuming salaried-worker-abusing Big 4 consulting job so I could focus on mastering some open-source technologies that the corporate world has not gotten a whiff of yet, and to try my hand at building great stuff with it... and I already have a paying project...)
So if I get this right, you are here to repeat my point for me, if you look at that grandparent post you will see its me.
No it isn't, because my point was that in the future apple might abuse a monopoly position in some way but Microsoft have abused their monopoly position in the past so right now Apple has less restrictions on their behaviour in the market. the great grandparent said...
"If Apple can open an online music store and restrict competing hardware and software products then why can Microsoft not compete in exactly the same way? "
And I replied
"Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Apple is not."
I then quantified it by saying that in the future apple might abuse their market position but until they are prosecuted under anti-trust they are free to do as they please in the market place.
unlike Microsoft, Apple was not prosecuted for anti-trust violations and as such have nobody limiting their behaviour in the market, if they continue to avoid an anti-trust court case, preferably by continuing to not violate anti-trust laws, then they will never have anybody limiting their behaviour in the market.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
Microsoft initially drafted a marketing agreement with language indicating that manufacturers that signed on would be barred from supplying software other than the Windows product.
An attorney for Microsoft, Charles Rule, said Microsoft regretted the mistake and that "a low-level business person" who was not fully aware of Microsoft's mandate was responsible.
Since when does any agreement get sent out of Microsoft without thirty different lawyers/PR Reps. looking it over. I hope the Judge calls them out on this.
A) They are either lying. -OR- B) Anti-trust measures are not working because Microsoft is to incompetent to police itself.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I think you have that backwards, a closer analogy is Sony only allowing you to play Sony Movies on Sony TVs. The only* media restriction on the iPod is that only apple can provide DRM content that can play on it, I don't have or want any DRM content so this restriction does not affect me in any way.
* by only I am assuming that apple obviously will not support every codec known to man or beast, but that the codecs they do support are open and standard enough that anybody can provide supported content.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
"Perhaps you could argue that they are leveraging their MP3 downloads market into the MP3 player market?"
Only if you assume that they're seperate products. Apple is creating a music download solution. Only when you look at it through Microsoft's/PC industry's piecemeal business model can it be considered harmful to the consumer.
"By the way, is there any need to write a one paragraph reply to every sentence from the OP?"
Yes, because the poster made several comments that were either grossly mis-informed or downright wrong. The post was geared to cause confusion and detract from Apple's strengths.
"It looks like your trolling."
It might only appear that way if you agreed with the parent comment... which was a troll in itself.
lol - yeah. almost everyone comes to apples defense when it comes to this argument. i was expecting to get a poor reception to this argument :-)
Because of their market size, Apple have secured volume discounts on flashram chips that allow them to sell their iPod nano player at a price lower than than any competitor can reach.
That means they're big. If you notice, Apple doesn't compete on price; somebody else could come up with a mp3 player that does things better than the iPod and steal some thunder. That is why Apple is not a monopoly. Thee is little stopping people from switching to a competitor.
A Monopoly is where their is only one supplier of a good or service, a monopoly is impossible in a true market economy but "near monopoly" and "monopoly like" situations are entirely possible,
Anyone can build mp3 players. Apple is merely dominant in this market.
Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the OS market, but they were still found guilty of abusing their monopoly status.
Yes they did. Their OS was sufficiently complex that no new competitors could enter the market, and all the OEMs would be bundling a MS OS with their PCs anyway, due to exclusivity deals. There is only one supplier, and noone else can create a competing product. The danger is that the desktop market may become irrelevant, what with everything moving to the web. The only things really keeping MS afloat are Office and Line of Business apps. If people migrate their internal apps to the web and pick an open document standard (predicated on the government doing so), then MS is fucked. All they'll have left is games, which is much smaller.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You wouldn't know really if you at the receiving end of a monopoly power. You've probably overpaid for your iPod but there is no way to tell because there are no other players that support the PlayFair format, thus no competition for your FairPlay player dollars. Why is it that WMA files play on a variety of players?
Format wars only hurt us, the consumers. Most formats are open - but Apple is pursing a rather old and archaic strategy A LA MS word formats.
As far as MS goes - it's a completly different discussion.
MS's antitrust suit was orginally raised by competitors of MS. There is no one right now in a position to challenge Apple in that regard except consumers. There is no competiton with Apple hardware, becuase there cannot be. Doesn't that strike you as wrong?
Tonight, we dive into the diseased human mind. Join me, the grey matter is warm. Within each of us are several personalities. For example, are any of us the same person when we talk to our parents as we are when we say, "I go with a prostitute?" J-just an example.
You see, in the normal mind these personalities are integrated. However, in the freakish...unnormal mind, these personalities splinter, forming separate and distinct people, living within a single brain, like this one!! (shows brain, drops it)
Now, in the tradition of 3 Faces of Eve, yet less ambitious than Cybill, join me in welcoming the multiple personalities of my brimstone baby, Manservant Hecubus. (Hecubus rises)
Dave: Good evening, master.
Kevin: Good evening. And now for the sleep of ages. Leba! Seba! Kootie! (Hecubus falls asleep) Hecubus, can you hear me?
Dave: Yes, master.
Kevin: Is there anyone else in you brain I can speak to?
Dave: Hold the phone, master. (changes) Hello. How ya doing, pally?
Kevin: And who am I talking to?
Dave: Ed. Ed's the name.
Kevin: And what do you do, Ed?
Dave: Uh, nothin'.
Kevin: Really, then how do you know when you're done? (Laughs, become serious) EVIL! Now, is there anyone else I can speak to?
Dave: Sure, just a sec. (changes) Hello.
Kevin: And who am I talking to now?
Dave: Ted. Ed said you wanted to talk to me.
Kevin: Gee, Ted. You sound an awful lot like Ed.
Dave: Yeah? Never heard that before.
Kevin: May I speak to Ed again?
Dave: Sure. (changes) Hello.
Kevin: Hello, is this Ed?
Dave: No, this is Fred. Ted musta heard you wrong. Ed, phone for you. (changes) Hello.
Kevin: Now Ed?
Dave: Yeah. (laughs)
Kevin: What's so funny?
Dave: It's still Fred. I fooled ya!
Kevin: Evil. May I please speak to Ed?
Dave: Sure. (changes) Hello, Ed here. (laughs)
Kevin: Okay, who is this?
Dave: Oh, it's Ed. I just think what Fred did was pretty damn funny. (changes)
Kevin: Oh, let me guess who this is. Jed?
Dave: No. My name Julio! Julio the bus driver!! Ay, ay!
Kevin: Now we're cooking with evil gas. Tell me, Julio, how long have you been around?
Dave: No, it's still Fred. God, you're gullible.
Kevin: Enough of this farce. Hecubus, awaken. (slaps him)
Dave: Master, where have I been?
Kevin: Oh, shut up. I hope this evening's performance has taught you to value your flimsy grasp on sanity. At any given moment, any one of you can snap! (snaps)
Dave: Hello, Ed here. Geez, you know , these tights really bind at the crotch.
Kevin: So from all of us at the snake pit, goodnight. And please remember to floss. (to Dave) Where did you go to acting school?
The ______ Agenda
Why do you think we've overpaid for iPods? Just because there are cheaper MP3 players? How about the fact that, for two quarters straight, Creative hasn't made money off it's MP3 players? Are they charging too little? Or how about the fact that there are MP3 players that cost more?
It's not because there are no other players that support FairPlay that make or break the iPod, btw. Over 500 million songs sold and something like 20 million iPods. Or 25 songs per iPod. To put it bluntly, the iTMS isn't really part of the equation (yet). The dominant format of choice is MP3 and AAC, and not Fairplay.
Both of which are actually open standards, both belonging to the MPEG group.
So why is it that the champion of AAC is Apple, while everyone else has chosen the 'closed' WMA?
And as for competition with Apple on hardware, there is plenty. Most of it sucks. Is that Apple's fault? Has Apple done anything to prevent Creative or Sony from doing any of 4 things to make competitive music players?
1) Better design (Sony's is prettier, but Creative's isn't)
2) Better software (iTunes wipes SonicStage or whatever Creative uses. We know about Apple's iTunes because it's free. Where can I download and use Creative Lab's software to organize my music?)
3) Better ad campaigns (Apple's more or less saturating the market. Sony can definitely match them. How come they aren't?)
4) Better price (Sony and Creative are more expensive. The 20gb Zen Sleek is $249 from Amazon, the 30gb iPod is $299 from Apple; cheaper per gb, plus you get color, pictures, and video from Apple. You get FM from Creative)
GPL Deconstructed
Care to explain that to Creative who have just publicly announced that they cannot sell cheeper MP3 players than the iPod. Apple is now able to compete on style AND price, the only way a competitor can beat them is to out Apple Apple.
You appear to be confusing monopoly with abuse of monopoly and illegally maintaining a monopoly.
A monopoly means there is a single supplier in a marketplace, it is technically impossible to ever have a real monopoly in a market because there will always be some competition. If you make the best toothbrush in the whole wide world and your ultra-mega-dragonball-toothbrush sells until it has 99% of the tooth care market, you have a near monopoly, once it grows to 100% (and all the competitors leave the market) you have a total monopoly, but the instant somebody pulls out a stick, ties a bit of string on one end and rubs in over their teeth, you have lost your monopoly. A monopoly is a description for a market not the behaviour of players in that market.
Microsoft never had a monopoly over operating systems, if they did Apple, Sun, Novel, Suse, Redhat (all the linux packagers) *BSD and palm would not exist, monopoly means single supplier the instant any other supplier is available (even if they never ever sell a single unit) the monopoly does not exist.
Microsoft was convicted of having a Monopoly like position in the OS market, which they then maintained by illegal means (and leveraged to take over emerging markets), having a monopoly is not illegal, and their is nothing specifically bad about a monopoly in and of itself.
You say Apple has a dominant position in the portable music player market, I said that in some territories they have a Monopoly like position, at some point a dominant position becomes a monopoly like position, it must do otherwise Microsoft would never have found itself in a Monopoly like position.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
You appear to be confusing monopoly with abuse of monopoly and illegally maintaining a monopoly.
Go look it up in a dictionary - monopolies are defined as being in control of a commodity to the point that you can raise its price. Apple apparently sells its products really cheaply, so they aren't doing that.
A monopoly means there is a single supplier in a marketplace, it is technically impossible to ever have a real monopoly in a market because there will always be some competition.
Standard Oil was a real monopoly. They controled the oil supply and crushed all competition until, as I recall, oil was discovered in LA and companies were formed faster than they could stomp them out or buy them.
You say Apple has a dominant position in the portable music player market, I said that in some territories they have a Monopoly like position, at some point a dominant position becomes a monopoly like position, it must do otherwise Microsoft would never have found itself in a Monopoly like position.
You can say what you like, but you're wrong, according to the common definition of a monopoly.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Is to be told that you have an illegally maintained monopoly and then just get a very minor slap on the wrist. This means that the floodgates of litigation are opened, and that a huge amount of pent-up frustration over business practices gets released on the company. This means that everyone who now has a valid antitrust case can pursue it with far less expense *and* that Microsoft has to be very careful about letting these go to trial.
For example, suppose Novell wins Novell v. Microsoft and Microsoft is found to have illegally maintained their MS Office monopoly. Not only does Novell have an easier case to make but Microsoft is much more vulnerable to a guilty verdict in this case because it would be an established matter of legal fact that Microsoft not only has market power in Windows but also in Office, and that both these monopolies had been obtained or maintained by illegally anticompetitive ways.
I have no sympathy of Microsoft. Indeed I am happy to see them be given a small cut and thrown into shark infested waters, as this case has done. But don't forget the role of the small cut.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
From the wikipedia monopoly page, the first sentence is.
Standard Oil was a real monopoly. They controled the oil supply and crushed all competition until, as I recall, oil was discovered in LA and companies were formed faster than they could stomp them out or buy them.
The definition does not include crushing competitors, anti competitive behaviour or illegal actions none are necessary for a market to be a monopoly. Standard Oil had a little over 60% of the oil market, not a technical monopoly by any stretch of the imagination yet it was broken up by the government because it abused its monopoly like position to inhibit competition.
You can say what you like, but you're wrong, according to the common definition of a monopoly.
Why, if Standard Oil with 60 odd percent of the oil market can be declared a de-facto monopoly, can I not suggest that in some territories Apple with its 75% market share holds a monopoly like status.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
That's not a very good definition. Monopoly power is defined by a company's ability to set prices, not their market share. The ability to control prices is a result of why certain things, such as physical phone service (specifically, the last mile) and utilities are natural monopolies - any new compeitior would need to duplicate a lot of infrastructure and get right of ways which are no longer available - why would the city allow such things if there's already power service to an area. A single supplier is common, but not neessary.
Face it: you could create an mp3 player tomorrow and sell it. That is why Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Not DRM that the iPod can read. Apple's DRM can only be used by ITMS, they have refused to licence it to third parties. Weren't they trying to legislate against Rhapsody (or something like that?) for selling DRMed content that the iPod could play?
Yes, that would be Real Networks, which owns Rhapsody. Real apparently reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM without licensing it from Apple (because Apple wouldn't license it to them), and Apple wasn't happy.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
That's not a very good definition. Monopoly power is defined by a company's ability to set prices, not their market share.
Good thing we were not (and never were) talking about monopoly power then.
Face it: you could create an mp3 player tomorrow and sell it. That is why Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
Good thing I didn't say Apple had a monopoly.
Shall I repeat myself, In some territories Apple holds a monopoly like position* which at some point in the future they might try to abuse** in an illegal manner, but for now there is nothing to stop them acting in ways which Microsoft*** is prevented from emulating.
* If Standard Oil can be broken up for abusing its 65% market share, Apple can be described as Monopoly like with 75%.
** Difficult to do
*** Convicted of illegally leveraging a monopoly in one market to take over another, and so prevented from certain market leveraging actions.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
Thanks for information.