Slashdot Mirror
Apple Antitrust Case Gets Green Light
SuperAlgae writes "The recent antitrust suit against Apple regarding iTunes and iPod has been approved to go forward. This is only the beginning of the process, but it does bring up some interesting questions about what defines a monopoly." From the article: "Slattery claimed that Apple's system freezes out competitors, and while one antitrust expert called it a long shot, another antitrust law professor said that the key to such a lawsuit would be convincing a court that a single product brand like iTunes is a market in itself separate from the rest of the online music market."
I can see the two types of posts that will ensue from this article.
Type A: This is another shill lawsuit brought against a corporation for playing the capitalism game. It's not their fault that they are so successful at raking in cash, leave them alone.
Type B: It's about time we realized how horrible a monopoly this company has going for them. If we hope to have a healthy market in this area, we need to split them up and make them compete for the customer's benefit.
In reality, there's a happy medium that we should be striving for. Where the Apple lawsuit falls, I'm not sure. Hopefully the judge can decide that and do the system some justice.
The American justice system has developed a set of laws that seem to be in the middle and have satisfied both sides. Unfortunately for Apple, it's hard to interpret what is and isn't a monopoly. Fortunately for Apple, companies like Microsoft that have violated anti-trust laws seemingly escaped unscathed through great legal action and repeals. So it's a matter of how much resource can you throw at it. Don't ignore it like Mama Bell did way back when or there may be baby Apples (Applets? lol) competing against each other with Mac users completely confused as to which flavor of Apple they want.
My work here is dung.
Makes no sense to me, but then Judge Jackson made a similar decision to define x86-based PC's as a distinct market which was monopolized by Microsoft, which also made no sense to me.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
How does that even make sense?
If the lawyers somehow succeed in this, every company will be a monopoly!
Ford will have a monopoly on Ford trucks!
Dell will have a monopoly on Dell computers!
Whirlpool will have a monopoly on Whirlpool refrigerators!
...and so on, ad even more nauseam.
In all seriousness, can anyone with some kind of legal background give us *some* idea of how a judge could even consider this? (Cpt. Kangarooski, maybe?)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Was anyone else offended/confused that Ars Technica writes an article with Judge James Ware in it yet puts a picture up of Judge Judy?
I'm not an idiot, you know.
It's almost like they're saying, "You don't know what a judge looks like, so we're going to give you the only image you can conceive a judge having."
My work here is dung.
I always thought the point of antitrust law was not to punish busineses for being successful, but for using "unfair" tactics to dominate a market. Apple weren't the first into online music, but they were the first to nail the formula.
Since the ultimate outcome of the Microsoft antitrust suit is that you can use unfair tactics and get just about clean away with it, maybe we should junk the whole business. I don't see whom antitrust law really benefits.
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
IANAL but if I recall, it's not illegal to be a monopoly. However it IS illegal to use your monopoly to extend unfairly into other areas. Hence, if MS earned a monopoly in the OS market that is ok but if they use it to create a monopoly for browsers or office software then *that* is illegal.
MS was convicted as a monopoly, but it didn't seem to harm them. They had so much money it didn't matter. Nothing matters to them. Apple, however, will actually have to comply with government orders. This could be a very bad thing for people who enjoy Apple's products.
There is a difference between monopolies. The ones that are reached using innovation (and marketing) and the ones reached using illegal (and unethically) means. Of course, there is a blurred line inbetween.
Animoog.org
I'm just outright amazed at the gall of some people. A lawsuit claiming anti-trust violations? What antitrust violations? Vertical integration alone is not sufficient to claim anti-trust. You actually have to show that Apple is actively locking competitors out of the market, something they simply aren't doing. Apple's player plays the standard industry formats including MP3 and AAC. The fact that they don't support a competitor's format (Microsoft Windows Media) is not unfair to the market.
In addition (correct me if I'm wrong here), Apple has made absolutely no move against those who have cracked the FairPlay DRM, such as the move that RealNetworks made a short while back. Apple has protected against non-iTunes programs accessing their online store, but usually with minimal fuss and argument.
So in short, what exactly is the case?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Um, I think a sizeable portion of the population has to actually be buying your products before you can be considered a monopoly.
I think the gp was referring to the issue of locking out competitors. But you knew that.
Xerox - first mover in produsing "copy machine"
Scotch (not sure of spelling) - first mover in produsing "sticky tape"
A monopoly [...] is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
It doesn't matter how many people need/want my service. If I'm the only supplier, I can charge what I like, abuse position as I see fit (if there were no legal restraints). Whether Apple have a monopoly now with iTunes, have always had one (in terms of the OS etc. supplied with their hardware, as I guess the g.p. implied), and whether or not it was and or is legal are open questions.
I know this is kind of offtopic but stick with me ok?
We are looking at how apple has come from computer wiz guys to mp3 playing world takeover via ipods. I personally hate apples computers, and doubt ill ever buy an ipod either (seen WAY too many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen ones go wonky). Eitherway i still dont see where this case is coming from and i hope it drops.
On the other hand, i thought of a company whom i respect and like : Google. Now they came along, and created a market in web search engines, alls fair so far. But if Microsoft, Yahoo, and everyone else running a search engine were to one day give up. It would leave google as the "top dog" of all search engines, infact, it would be the ONLY search engine.
Still with me?
Then suddenly, someone realises, google dont just have a search engine.... nope, they have a desktop search client, a email client, a chat client.... OMG its a huge monopoly, quick, bring the anti-trust laws against them, they have built this huge monopoly and no one else can get in. (When the fact is everyone else choose to drop out as it wasn't worth the hassle).
Creative have been creating mp3 players for a long time, yet apple created the "hit" one. If creative (and everyone else) were to stop creating mp3 players, would that be apples own created monopoly?
Maybe im plain confused about the law, being from the UK and all...
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
However, in the iTMS + iPod world, these are two separate products that each have a strongly dominant hold on their respective markets, which also monopolistically exclude all competition from functioning with either product. I say it's about time someone looked at this case. How many /.ers have friends who bought a non-iPod mp3 player only to find out that none of their Fairplay-encrypted songs will play on it? How many /.ers have iPods that they wish could use Napster or a competing music store to purchase songs with different rights or improved quality?
Apple has been a monopoly far longer than Microsoft or IBM ever were.
1. Apple has NOT been a monopoly for anywhere near as long as IBM. IBM was producing the majority of business computers before Steve Jobs was even out of diapers.
2. Having a monopoly on your own products is not an actionable offense. Having a monopoly on the market is what places you at risk of being charged with abusing your position.
3. Note that having a monopoly on the market is not illegal as long as you can show that you're not actively discouraging competitors. (In Intel's case, the DOJ was happy with them providing all the specs to their chips so that compatible versions could be created and anyone could program them. That's why I can ask Intel for FREE developers manuals, and have them arrive in the mail within a few weeks.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How come no one has sued Microsoft for making xbox games unplayable on a playstation? Or Nintendo for not allowing gamecube games to work on a pc? It seems the concept is the same: I have a hardware platform (game console, ipod) and I have content that works on said content platform (games, itunes tracks). There's nothing illegal about the fact that I'd have to buy 2 versions of Madden if I wanted to play it on my xbox and on my playstation... This just seems silly to me.
The key difference here is that iTunes and the iPod are wildly popular.
What I find to be the issue is that I cannot get their DRM on any non-Apple product. I am quite sure if it was available someone would have licensed it. This leads me to believe that either they are not licensing Fairplay or setting the cost too high for anyone else to be competitive.
Just like with their OS they are locking out competitors. Unlike their PC line the iPod/iTunes combination is immensely popular. In the US they are near if not over 3/4 of the market. Since they control both ends of their market (hardware and service) they are actually in a stronger position than Microsoft. Unlike the PC world you don't have a valid alternative to iTunes if you own an iPod and vica versa.
Apple should be required to license FairPlay for a reasonable cost. It is anything but Fair now. Apple is protecting their margin in the US by keeping the competition from competing. I would love some competition to iPods, bring those prices down. That may be the key to the lawsuit, since you cannot compete with Apple they can dictate the market prices so strictly.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yeah, Apple has a monopoly over Macs just like IBM does over AIX mainframes. Shrink the market enough and you start finding monopolies everywhere.
Type B: It's about time we realized how horrible a monopoly this company has going for them. If we hope to have a healthy market in this area, we need to split them up and make them compete for the customer's benefit.
Type C: Apple isn't a monopoly but is practicing illegal monopolistic practices and the ruling forces apple to lead competitors use iPods (see Real and Napster) or stop using its fairplay DRM.
But I don't know if its illegal or not. Thats for the courts to decide.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If you spend hundreds of dollars buying songs from itunes, it becomes a massive inconvenience (not to mention the forced quality degradation and dubious legality) to convert the itunes songs from iTunes to WAV to mp3
Kind of like when you had to go from tapes to CDs huh?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Huh? That's precisely what Apple is fighting to prevent. That's what the plaintiff wants.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Note to everyone: Don't become successful, or we will seek to destroy you. Signed: unproductive, greedy, envious socialists.
Bingo. Apple isn't a monopoly because:
1) They don't block you from using other music on the iPod. They also don't block use of other OSes on the Mac.
2) It is the iTunes Music Store. That should give you the hint that it's designed for iTunes. Apple didn't create the iTMS as a standalone product, it was created as a feature of iTunes. Now, I don't expect to get Windows features (DirectX 9/10) on Linux or Mac, and I don't expect BMW to supply their features to Ford. You easily use a DRM-free music store to buy music and load it into iTunes.
3) It's really the RIAA's fault. If there was no DRM on iTMS songs, you could use them anywhere. Music that can't be loaded into iTunes can't be loaded because it has DRM from someone else on it that iTunes doesn't know how to break.
Why do I need and iPod? A record turntable on the back seat of my car with springs, dampers and a weighted tonearm is fine with me. OK, I wear out a copy of Dark Side of the Moon in a few months, but its cheaper than spending money on one of those MD-3 thingies.
Lawyers.
But songs purchased from iTunes can be burned to CD, reimported in MP3, and used on any MP3 player. iTMS makes it more direct to work on iPod, but it can be done...
And iPod supports MP3 + Fairplay. If other music services want to work on iPod, they can allow conversion of their DRM into MP3 (or burning to CD), either would be enough to get it to the iPod.
"Not fair, I can't tie the customers hands with my WMA files and let them play on iPod!"
Um, I think a sizeable portion of the population has to actually be buying your products
No, I think the salient feature of a monopoly is the economic impracticality of competing. It's not necessary for the majorityof the population to buy your products by any means. Only that the portion of the population that does buy your kind of products is inaccessible to competitors.
It's not illegal in the least to enjoy a monopoly. However your actions are legally constrained in two ways. You can't use your domination of the market segment to prevent the emergence of competitors (although whether this is technically speaking even possible is disputed by right wing economists). You can't use your monopoly in one area to reduce your competitors' access to market segments in another area.
Apple arguably has a monopoly on high end portable music players. If this is the case, there are at least two actions that Apple has taken that may be illegal attempts to leverage that monopoly into a monopoly on on-line music distribution. First is their refusal to license their FairPlay technology, at least under terms other vendors would accept. Second is their undermining of attempts by other vendors (Real) to get their own DRM'd material to play on iPods. Clearly, what Apple is doing is attempting to prevent consumers from buying material from other vendors to play on their iPods. These actions are neither beneficial for the consumer nor were they meant to be. However, that is in itself neither here nor there.
I think what is at question is whether it is possible to create a viable music store without access to iPods. If not, then Apple's would be competitors might have a case.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There are several other online music purchasing systems: no monopoly there. There are many other mp3 players: no monopoly there.
So the monopoly they're disputing is the fact that you can only (effectively) use apple's service with apple devices? Or is it that the iPod doesn't play very nicely with other music services?
What a crime to have a device specific to a service. It's also annoying that my XM receiver doesn't work with Sirius under one subscription, my cable box doesn't pick up sattelite, my video game systems only take games made for them (and not each other), a turkey won't fit in my george foreman grill, and my ford car doesn't easily accept a bmw engine.
That's how anti-trust laws get abused. You can call anything a monopoly if you restrict your definition of "its market" well enough. In the Windows case, it was "MS has a monopoly on OS's ... for x86 computers ... that people use at home ... and not as servers". I've heard of cases where someone was called a monopoly because he "dominated" the market for "dough ... that comes ready-made ... for pizzas ... in the Salt Lake City limits ... after 10pm". Strictly speaking, everyone is a monopoly. I have a monopoly on the services of Leon Geeste. The corner store has a monopoly on hot dogs sold at that corner. They need to ask more substantive questions like, "Do people have an alternative?" "Is the alleged monopolist spending money to hurt competitors rather than improve its product?"
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Of course they don't have a monopoly on music distribution, look at all the people who use Limewire!
not to mention the DMCA violations you'd be committing by knowingly removing DRM. if anything else, itunes' lock in is preventing theft and keeping those nefarious pirates from stealing profits from the hard working music industry! (read with sarcasm)
As far as the download business goes, in theory no legal download site is getting their product on terms any more favorable than Apple. Apple should charge a reasonable (e.g. $0.03 per download) royalty for the use of its FairPlay DRM. After which, if others want to sell music effectively at cost then let them do it in the market.
This would be the most fair outcome for both the users and the companies involved.
If FairPlay is a patent, then it should eventually expire. If it's not patented (a distinct possibility under the DMCA) then Apple deserves no protection from others reverse engineering and using it themselves.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
IANAL but I have recently had the business law class in the MBA program @ GSU.
It is not illegal in the US to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use your monopoly position to compete unfairly (i.e. "abusive monopolist").
In the US the Dept of Justice and the Dept of Commerce usually consider a firm to be a monopoly if they have ~70% market share. Providing a variety of products or services is not generally necessary to be considered a monopolist. For instance, Amtrak is a monopoly provider of interstate rail travel, the US Post Office is a monopoly provider of First Class Mail service (but not for package service), and many utility companies are monopolies.
If all of the competitors except one in a market space leave the market, the remaining firm is indeed a monopoly. There was some concern recently that Walmart might become a monopoly provider of grocery services in the US. There was a large grocery chain (I can't remember which one, I think it was in California) that was on the verge of bankruptcy. If they stopped operation, Walmart was going to be very close to the 70% mark. I think the grocer did a reorganization instead.
The big thing about being a monopoly is that you are under greater governmental oversight and your business practices can be sharply constrained. However, as Microsoft showed, it is possible to stretch regulatory litigation out until you can get a more friendly administration (i.e. Clinton to Bush).
... and it plays on my iPod.
I bought CDs, ripped them using iTunes and put them on my iPod.
So how am I forced to use iTMS?
Admittedly I would like to see Fairplay licensed to other music store providers, as Apple has got the vast majority of the portable music market now. However it hasn't got it by foul means, simply by having a better product that people want.
Is 'music for iPods' a distinct market from 'music for portable music players'?
Are consumers getting harmed? Arguably iTMS is the most usable online music store. iTunes is the most usable music application. iPod is the most usable player. Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPod, use iTunes, or shop from iTMS. There are other options and they aren't niche - there's hundreds of WMA capable players on the market that can play DRM-encrusted WMA music from other stores. There's dozens of WMA music stores online.
The iTunes music store is not needed to use your iPod. I have filled my 20gb iPod and have bought MAYBE 10 songs from iTunes. The rest were from CD's that I own or concerts that I downloaded (fan-recordings) or purchased (sound board recordings). Those 10 songs I bought could have just as easily been purchased on CD Albums or Singles. So where does the monopoly come in?
If other online stores want to sell music that works on the iPod, they can sell standard MP3's (like http://livephish.com/), and they'll work just fine.
$8.95/mo web hosting
... they might actually have to ... strech their minds ... and see other products? Heaven forbid!
its ok. The second mouse button isn't as difficult as it looks...
apple isn't the only supplier though, it's ignorant to think that itunes is either:
a) the only supplier of music
b) the only supplier of online music
c) the only supplier of music that can work with ipods
the only thing that they do control is extremely limited: they are the only supplier of DRM'd music downloads that work on ipods.
apple also isn't a monopoly in computing. there are hundres of computers, they are called pc manufacturers.
-- lol pwned
But as others have said, just because you can't play Madden06 on your PS2 against somebody around the world on their XBox via XBox Live doesn't mean that MSFT has a monopoly on online gaming environments.
My opinion? It's the marketplace that has created this so-called monopoly. If the product wasn't good and easy to use, people wouldn't buy into it and they'd find the next best thing. Before MSOffice tood over the lead, WordPerfect used to be *the* word processor back in the day. And before that, it was WordStar. Each one had considerable marketshare until it was upended by something newer/better/easier/etc from a competitor. Apple and it's i-product line is no different... just waiting for someone else to step to the plate.
Otherwise it's stupid and discriminatory to fry a small potato, especially since any competitor can offer the same music catalog as iTunes (and if not, that's recording company's fault, not Apple's), while Windows competitors can not offer the same selection of apps as MS.
No, the market in question was "the consumer operating system market". The fact that consumer computer operating systems were, by and large, running on computers which are x86es in 1999 is roughly as relevant as the fact that they were, by and large, running on computers which are beige. The Microsoft antitrust case wasn't about Microsoft monopolizing computers which were beige, beige plastic was just a property of one tangential detail of the market(s) Microsoft monopolized.
But, hey, you can belittle anything if you simplify it to one sentence, I guess.
Wow, that's the single best statement to refute my argument. A DRM-free world wouldn't have these problems :)
I think that without a doubt Apple is a major innovator. But I think they in some ways hold back the industry, because they don't like to play with others so to speak. I envisioned FairPlay as becoming the next standard in music licenses back a while ago, but Apple's strict control didn't allow that. Just as DVD needed a standard, so do MP3 players, and as long as a majority of legit songs use a secure format most brands of players can't play w/o conversion, this won't work well.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
I believe that the case isn't going to go in this guy's favor. But, let's just assume for a moment that the judge ultimately rules that the combination of iTMS and iPod have given Apple and unfair monopoly in the digital music marketplace, just what does the plaintiff expect to have happen? What sorts of measures would the judge impose to soften Apple's alleged monopoly?
iTunes is the one product, iPod is meant to be a convenience extension of it.
iTMS is another convenience add-on to iTunes.
Lots of music from many sources, (though not all) can be played in iTunes and by extension on an iPod.
I think the thing to remember is that the iPod technically is an accessory to iTunes, not the other way around.
If you don't like iTunes, then an iPod isn't for you. Fashionable as they might be...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Apple first added DRM to the AAC files provided by the iTunes store, because of requirments set about but the RIAA. Without their DRM, Apple would not have been allowed to distribute music. On the other hand if DRM was never mandated by the music industry then we would not be in this mess.
Apple could have used WMA, but this is a closed specification, to which Microsoft holds the keys. It is also not a format that provides people with a very good quality of audio. AAC is still a lossy format too, but it is still better than WMA, IMHO. At the same time it should be noted that the DRM that Apple is using, known as FairPlay, is actually one of the more liberal DRMs out there.
Apple also has the iPod which whose only supported DRMed file format is the AAC+FairPlay, which is sourced from the iTunes music store. The iPod because of its simplicity of design and usage, has grown to be an extremly popular media player and its popularity doesn't seem to stop. Whether it is the iPod itself or the iPod+iTunes combination, is another discussion. It should also be noted that the iTunes+iPod combination has trounced every other solution, even the 'huge MP3 player selection'+'many WMA based stores' solution. Heck, even Sony tried this with their 'media player'+'sony connect store' solution, which flaked because of a badly designed UI, poor media format and average media players. Something else that should be noted is how few of them actually support the Mac platform and require IE!?
So that is the background of the current situation. In many ways Apple is in the situation it is in now because of what has happened around it. Apple had taken advantage of that situation to be where it its today. Apple could license WMA on the iPod, hence helping other stores sell their music, but why would Apple want to pay money to lose money? On the other hand Apple could license out FairPlay, which is the one I would go with, and would encourage. But then again is anyone else, other than Apple, actually supporting the MP4 audio format, known as AAC?
Something else that should be mentioned is: that any time the DRM in FairPlay gets circumvented Apple can easily make changes without upsetting other media player manufacturers or file publishers.
Just as an added note, Real did provide a hack to allow the iPod to play their format, but Apple was having none of this. Here there is clearly reason to feel that Apple was not being open in allowing Real onboard, since it doesn't sound like Real was going to charge Apple for that privilage.
The truth is, however much I feel Apple should probably open up FairPlay and even let other parties put their codecs on the iPod, I feel that a few other things should also happen:
- companies should make better media Players, in terms of looks and useability (only Creative comes close)
- music distributors should stop mandating the Windows+IE combination
- The RIAA should come up with its own DRM that offers the same advantages as FairPlay, since in the end they are mostly responsible for the situation we are in. Forcing people to use WMA is not an answer.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Wouldn't it be sweet for the courts to rule that DRM is unconstitutional and it must be removed from all digital media! Thats the problem and we can blame the RIAA for it. Of course, now they don't like the fact that Apple has so much influence and wields so much power for digital music. And I don't see Apple removing DRM anytime soon since they've found out that DRM is not about preventing piracy, its about vendor lock-in. So maybe the courts will come through for us.
That's a good point too, but I think from the content publisher's perspective, there is no difference.
Example: EA and EMI
EA has Madden 2006 as a game. They publish that game to different platforms: Xbox, PS2, X360, Gamecube, PC, Mac, Gameboy, PSP, etc. Each of those products work exclusively with it's hardware platform.
EMI has Coldplay's X&Y as an album. They publish that album to different platforms: CD, SACD, DVD-A, iTunes AAC, Rhapsody AAC, PlaysForSure WMA, etc. Again, each of those products works with it's particular hardware (or software) platform.
I don't understand how the iTunes AAC format should be treated any different than any other "platform" out there. I mean, it's not like I buy a DVD-Audio disc and expect that it should be "open" enough so that it plays in my car CD player. I don't purchase Mario Kart and expect to play it on my PC. There is no precedent for saying that I should expect that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this suit is successful, then we would have to say goodbye to platform exclusive content, and the cost of supporting every platform would be incurred whenever you only wanted to buy one version of the content. Legally EA would have to not only support Madden 2006 on every platform, but give you the "right" to use it on any platform you wanted with a single purchase. That's the equivelent of what they are asking for. They want content purchased from iTunes to be supported on any competing platforms. I just think that's crazy, especially when the content IS already supported on competing platforms, just for an additional cost (just like the game industry).
Microsoft does hold a monopoly that was decided in court both in the US and EU.
Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
'' I think what is at question is whether it is possible to create a viable music store without access to iPods. If not, then Apple's would be competitors might have a case. ''
There is no need at all to give up access to iPods. Just sell your music in the good old MP3 format, and every music player except for a few made by Sony will be able to play it. Actually, I think you could outsell the iTunes Music Store quite easily.
And that is exactly why this is a monopoly. You see, Microsoft does allow others to play their file types, the specifications for the file formats are fairly open. You see, WMA is a subtype of ASF, documentation for which you can download here. And this is obviously a logical move as Microsoft does not develop hardware. And it sure as hell wouldn't fend off iPods playing their file format as long as Apple would pay to use it. But Apple does not allow (as far as I've managed to read in the posts) implementing and playing of their formats by their competitors. What I'm trying to say is, that AFAIK, Apple will not allow Creative to develop a direct iPod comptetitor (because it won't allow them to play the music they purchse on ITunes) -- which is a monopoly.
Take for example, cars and razors. Ford makes cars. Gillette make razors. Can they lock out competitors in such a way that prevents third parties and competitors from supplying their customers with replacement parts? Legally they can under certain circumstances. Through the use of patents, Ford and Gillette can keep others from making replacement parts. i.e. the water pump on a Focus is a completely new design. In this case, it is not as clear as we are talking about formats and access.
Personally I think that Apple will prevail. Unlike the MS case, Apple has succeeded mainly on its own merits. It has not prevented others from making players or online music stores or both. However besides Sony, not many other competitors can achieve the vertical integration that Apple has.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
For that matter, their entire business model is a "Monopoly(TM)". The iTunes/iPod model isn't much different from the OSX/iMac/PowerMac/iBook/... model. Apple doesn't specifically make provisions for installing other operating systems on the hardware they sell, and you can't easily install their operating system on other hardware.
Apple in this case would be fighting to prevent an open standard for the sale of music and handling of music by it's products and services. Well color me shocked... Next thing you'll be telling me is that bears like to deficate in forests.. Or that the Pop happens to be Catholic! Blashphemy!
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
'' What I'm trying to say is, that AFAIK, Apple will not allow Creative to develop a direct iPod comptetitor (because it won't allow them to play the music they purchse on ITunes) -- which is a monopoly. ''
Apple has absolutely no control over AAC. AAC is the industry standard. Everybody can get a license for AAC, and there is nothing that Apple could do about it. 90+ percent of my music is stored in unencrypted AAC format (the rest in unencrypted MP3 format, plus a few lossless things). Whoever wants to compete with the iPod first has to support AAC.
As with any new market, one company comes out strong and dominates the market with a superior product during the infantile stage of the boom. Ultimately if there is money to be made in the market (and obviously there is here), other companies will catch up and balance it out over time.
iTunes has only been out for about 4-5 years and only in past 24 months has it really started to dominate.
With this sort of reasoning, Palm should have been sued in 1999 when the PDA market was taking off.
Look at Palm today. They're a mere shadow of the company they were in 1999 due to the rest of the industry catching up and ultimately surpassing them.
While I am sure monetary benefit factored into Apple's equation when making the decision to make iTunes and the iPod a closed pair there are other factors. If the court were to force Apple to license FairPlay Apple would then have to assume the Support Cost of making sure that songs purchased on iTunes function on other players. This in my opinion is the main reason Apple has locked out other players.
Apple has a history of pairing Hardware and Software to make sure they produce a functional product. This is the same reason Console games are easier to code than PC games there is less hardware to worry about.
Based on this argument alone I can not see the courts forcing Apple to license FairPlay or include other DRM schemes in the iPod.
Apple isn't a monopoly, they have competitiors all fucking over the place. Even kellogs serial have a iPodkiller out on the shelfs. People just chose to buy iPods over other less expensive products because...... it's better.
They aren't freazing out the market or killing the competition, they just make the best product, you can't sue them for that(or apparently you can).
That would be relevant if ITMS used AAC, but it doesn't. It uses AAC+Fairplay, which Apple has complete and total control over.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
clever marketing of a proprietary product is monopolistic?! hell no! the competitors could (and are) creating products that mimic the success of the ipod, but they can't make a budge, because apple's made a name for themselves, not because they've been doing anything monopolistic. it IS a long shot, and with due reason -- its not a monopoly, just a successful product. because a company decides to only let their software work with their product is nothing new. look at sony with the minidisc. after all, you CAN burn CDs from itunes, and transfer that to something else.
True, one needs to narrow the market in question to "Portable Digital Music Players that play untranscoded iTunes songs". Once the market is narrowed sufficiently, its difficult to argue that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on said market.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Apple is a monopoly in this area. Or, more specifically, they hold "monopoly power" - which is all the law (apparently - IANAL, and IANAA; the last A is American) requires.
I think it can be successfully argued that Apple does hold monopoly power - iTunes is the dominant online music store, and the iPod is the dominant portable music player.. and both are incompatible with any other music player/store. Apple has refused to support protected wma in the iPod, and has refused to license the fairplay DRM to others.
But I don't think that Apple has abused their monopoly in order to enter into ther areas - a requirement for a violation of the Anti-trust act, AFAIK. Now, you might be able to argue that since you can no longer get Quicktime without downloading iTunes as well, that they're using their monopoly power in the online music area to expand into media players on PCs.. but I think that's a long shot.
That said, I didn't really believe Microsoft had a monopoly during their antitrust trial days... consumers had the choice of MacOS, or BeOS, or Linx, etc. for their computers. So I may very well be wrong here.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Ok, flip the script from the plaintiff's standpoing. I have an iPod. I want to play music from Napster which uses WMA+[Microsoft's DRM]. I can't because a) There are no OS X apps from this company (or any other for that matter) to interface with my iPod b) by your definition, Napster is a monopoly in my case.
See how silly this whole thing is?
How would Napster be a monopoly when there are multiple sources of DRM'ed WMA music?
Anyway, I don't like this case, but if you get an idiot like Judge Jackson deciding the case, who knows what will happen?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Oh shit, Dell has a monopoly on Dell computers! Lenovo has a monopoly on IBM ThinkPads! Someone call the FTC!
After all, I am strangely colored.
Apple arguably has a monopoly on high end portable music players. If this is the case, there are at least two actions that Apple has taken that may be illegal attempts to leverage that monopoly into a monopoly on on-line music distribution. First is their refusal to license their FairPlay technology, at least under terms other vendors would accept. Second is their undermining of attempts by other vendors (Real) to get their own DRM'd material to play on iPods. Clearly, what Apple is doing is attempting to prevent consumers from buying material from other vendors to play on their iPods.
I think what is at question is whether it is possible to create a viable music store without access to iPods. If not, then Apple's would be competitors might have a case.
That's the last line in the article summary. I'd say the idea is ridiculous in it's face.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"I would love some competition to iPods, bring those prices down. "
iTMS is not the reason iPods are popular. I'm guessing that there is a small subset of people (not well thought out in my opinion) who buy lots of music from iTMS and would never think about lower costs or no-DRM. We can speculate why, but it ultimately doesn't matter.
But the majority of people buy iPods because (a) they are popular (b) there is a huge technological "ecosystem" around iPods (c) they are popular.
If iTMS shut down today, it would have very little impact on iPods. So I differ with you in that even if iTMS was opened up to every player, it would only have a slight impact on iPod sales, and thus no impact on prices.
Now my guess is Apple doesn't want to have a competing music store, because despite their protestations of how iTMS doesn't make much money...I don't believe them.
I think this lawsuit is a shell brought about by RIAA members because they had hoped to control digital distribution and all of the sudden Apple is their distribution network. So they're hiding behind other companies using the "monopoly" lawsuit.
I have no particular like for any of the companies involved, but I don't see that this suit has any merit at all. It won't help the consumer in any way, an I see it ultimately playing into the RIAA member's hands, which is a bad thing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
EXACTLY! This whole Apple antitrust thing is confused from the beginning. People are confusing the definition of monopoly with the definition of popularity.
"But Apple does not allow (as far as I've managed to read in the posts) implementing and playing of their formats by their competitors. What I'm trying to say is, that AFAIK, Apple will not allow Creative to develop a direct iPod comptetitor (because it won't allow them to play the music they purchse on ITunes) -- which is a monopoly."
Ok by that logic, as a Mac owner, I should be able to sue Yahoo, Napster and the rest for not having a Mac client that will support my old 64 MB Rio (which won't play WMA files), and Microsoft for not making IE for the Mac.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
...to drive this kind of ridiculous suit forward. Yep, lots of money and corporate power.
then it's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Actually their warranty service treated me pretty well. Ten months after I bought my iPod it started acting funny. I sent it in to Apple, they sent me a new one for the price of shipping.
Uh, yeah, that's because of Apple. Apple are the ones who will not license the only protected format that the iPod plays, the format that they control. Do you really think that Napster, Real, Yahoo, are all engaged in a grand conspiracy to lock out iPod owners? No, the reason they don't support the iPod is because Apple will not let them.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Not the same at all. You don't need an iPod to listen to iTMS music, nor can you not get the same music for other devices.
1. The RIAA has a monopoly in the mainstream music industry.
...
2. P2P and digital downloads threaten to undermine their business model, thus they start a propaganda war against P2P.
3. In fighting against P2P, they are pressured into allowing licensed digital downloads, so they claim all the "pirates" are naughty because they now have an alternative.
4. Apple is a niche player in the personal computer market. The RIAA lets Apple into the digital download market, hoping they will remain a niche player but don't want them to be too successful. They force a price of $0.99 per song, higher than that of a physical album CD.
5. They force Apple to have a closed format DRM that locks the customers out and forces them to use only approved software/hardware (itunes/ipod) to access their music.
6. Apple becomes too successful, the RIAA now want to up the pricing model, but can't apply enough pressure because Apple is the market leader.
7. The RIAA (and Microsoft) are fed up of NOT being in a monopoly position and yet at the same time don't want to simply support an open(ish) format such as MP3 because while it would undermine apples control on the market, it would also undermine their own.
8. A proxy for the RIAA sues Apple for being a monopoly and getting in the way of the RIAA's monopoly.
9.
10. Profit ???
-5 - Stupid Question
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
This is ridiculous.
In the 'glory' years of the New Economy no part of the music industry was able to build an working online music store, parctically leaving this market to early Napster and Kazaa. Then they bought Napster, sued Kazaa and the likes and still they weren't able to build up an online music store.
Then came Apple and proved them all wrong. And now it's a monopoly?
Yes there is, Microsoft is stopping them. If Sony wants their media player program to run on unmodified XBoxes, they have to license it through Microsoft, who then signs the binaries so the XBoxes won't complain. Microsoft may or may not have a problem with Sony releasing a media player program for the XBox, but to say that there's nothing stopping them is just wrong. If that was true, modchips wouldn't be necessary, and you wouldn't need a modchip to run linux on one.
If iTunes were to use a format like, let's say WMA, there would not be a problem. *puts on body armor*
Its called innovation, its called competition. They were just better at it than the rest and now they've got their just rewards. Get over it.
Apple has a monopoly on iPods. Other people can go and make a mp3 player any way they like.
Sure, and people can go and make a desktop operating system any way they like. It doesn't mean they can sell one.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Strictly speaking, everyone is a monopoly.
Not really, but I know what you mean. You answer this yourself though with "do people have an alternative". The question one should ask to determine if something is or is not a monopoly is "are there substitutes available"? In the case of Windows, if I as an individual need to run some particular software that only runs on Windows, then I have no substitute (unless that other software itself has a substitute that runs on another platform). In a world where 99% of software runs only on Windows, it seems reasonable to say that an effective substitute for Windows does not exist. Hence the feeling many people get that they are effectively "forced" to buy Windows, even though alternatives like OS X or Linux do technically exist --- their existence doesn't automatically make them substitutes in the market.
You may seem to have a "monopoly" on the services of Leon Geeste, but the real question is, do your customers need "Leon Geeste" specifically or do they need "the services you provide"? Are you the product? No, unless you're a celebrity the services you provide are probably the product, not you, and to determine whether or not you are a monopoly you ask "do your clients have market substitutes" ... i.e. are there others that provide similar services. Are your services unique and highly specialised?
In the case of iPod+iTMS, it seems to me that reasonable market substitutes are available no matter how you look at it. The music itself? Sure, you can get that elsewhere (e.g. buy the CD). *Online* music? Again, alternatives exist. Music that runs on the iPod? Again, you can put MP3s on an iPod so the iPod can run music that comes from anywhere. Portable music players? Again, there are others in the market that are substitutes ... nobody needs to buy an iPod to do what an iPod does (unless they are so seriously 'branded' that buying anything other than an iPod would be beneath them).
Maybe he's right: Apple is only practicing, it's Microsoft who is the expert.
Sure, and people can go and make a desktop operating system any way they like. It doesn't mean they can sell one.
Totally different - it's way easier to switch mp3 players than PCs. What this is really about is Diamond and co. trying to ride Apple's coattails and crying foul when they find they can't.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
By definition, you can't be practicing "illegal monopolistic practices" unless you're a monopoly.
Well, what if you are practicing something that will eventually lead to a monopoly? Such behavior would be illegal way before the company became a monopoly.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Yes, it is. If you have iTunes music, you cannot listen to it on any portable device except an iPod. And if you have an iPod, you cannot buy any music online except from iTunes.
Judge Jackson described an "application barrier" that created significant costs to switching to another platform.. I think this is almost analagous.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Why should they allow other ppl? I mean, it's Jobs company, he can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't abuse his market position. It's a private company. It aint no public trust. So, are you telling me that he's abusing market position? Or that Ipods are undercutting other competitors by price? Or that Ipods can raise their prices with impunity to demand? Are any of these factors truth? Do Judges even study economics anymore or are they just shills? U.S. District Judge James Ware is a tool. A bonafide tool.
If you have iTunes music, you cannot listen to it on any portable device except an iPod. And if you have an iPod, you cannot buy any music online except from iTunes.
Crikey, I must have hallucinated doing both!
Let's see, here's a song I've downloaded from iTMS... here's a blank CD. Mix, Burn, stick it in a Sony Discman... that's a portable device you know... and it's just fine. That's what I did for years before getting an iPod Shuffle. Ih, you mean an MP3 player? Well, let's see... an audio CD. Take it out of my Discman, putit in my computer, Rip it, oh look, it's an MP3 file! Theoretically, it's now got lower quality, but listening to it on tiny earbuds in a noisy environment I can't tell the bloody difference...
Now, let's see... I go to Amazon.com, buy a CD, it costs a little more than on iTMS (hold on a second, isn't the monopoly product supposed to be more expensive?) but it's better quality, and the MP3s I rip from it play on anything... even an iPod. I can buy MP3 and MP4 versions of songs and albums from dozens of artists own websites. I can pull the "Mix, Burn, Rip" trick on Windows Media files.
Compared to what you have to do if you want to use an OS other than Windows, it's nothing. The biggest "application barrier to entry" for non-iPod MP3 players has nothing to do with iTunes, it has to do with the fact that you can go anywhere and buy accessories for an iPod. You can get iPod accessories at the grocery store, at the pharmacy, I've seen them at a Chevron gas station!
A lot of that has to do with the fact that they're so common, but it's also due to the fact that Apple doesn't change the iPod form factor and connector every six months.
While this anti-trust suit makes my blood boil, I think the best thing would be to counter sue, but not only Mr. Sluttery. Sue Microsoft because their "Pplays for Sure" does not play on my iPod. Sue Napster because their music does not play on my iPod (and their crapshit store doesn't even work on my Mac).
Come on you brave Americans, do it the good old American way: Countersue.
Just think it's kinda cute how Google and Yahoo are getting the shaft from the US government for the whole China business, and now an antitrust lawsuit against Apple pops up.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
hat said, I didn't really believe Microsoft had a monopoly during their antitrust trial days... consumers had the choice of MacOS, or BeOS, or Linx, etc. f
Except for the Mac, you had (still have to mostly) to buy a computer that had Windows pre-installed on it before you could use other OSs on them, and you paid for it whether you used it or not. It was not possible for IBM, for example, to sell x86-based AIX machines, for example, because they still would have paid Microsoft for the Windows license because it was an x86-based computer.
If I want to use an ipod and buy music, I gotta buy my music through itunes. If I wanna use any other mp3 player that supports plays for sure, then any other music store will work with it. So with every other music store out there, I can choose my mp3 player. But with itunes, I gotta use the ipod. This is why they're in trouble.
My Gawd WTF...
But if you argued that, you would be wrong, because you can download Quicktime without downloading iTunes.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Nonsense. If I buy a Nikon camera, and then 5 years later, Canon comes out with a better camera, I have to re-buy all my lenses again. Does this make Nikon a monopoly?
... and then they built the supercollider.
"The way Apple runs its iPod business is the same way it runs it Macintosh unit: vertical integration. They want to be responsible for all aspects of the product from software to hardware, and in the case of the iPod, ensuring the content comes from the "correct" place to work with its unit. If we do not label the Macintosh hardware/software model as a "monopoly", then we should not label the iPod as such either."
Apple is a small player in the personal computer market, so Macintosh is not a monopoly. In the online digital music/portable music player market, they have an overwhelming marketshare, and their using technology to lock in the market by not allowing competitors to make compatible harware or software. They are doing exactly what MS did when they got sued. So if you believe MS is a monopoly in OS, you should believe Apple is a monopoly in online digital music/portable music player market.
Vote for Pedro
Is there a mod for '-5 Has utterly no clue' ?
Apple can't be defined as a monopoly except in the trivial (and ridiculous) sense of its own products. That's not a valid definition legally, and I've never seen an intelligent argument to support it that couldn't be easily knocked down.
The make the OS for their hardware, and they require their hardware to run their OS.
That's vertical integration, not monopolistic practices.
Apple vertically integrate, but that's neither illegal nor necessary for a monopoly. It's their model now, it's always been their model in the past and it probably will be in the future.
Apple have never been a monopoly. They still aren't one now. This suit looks baseless to me, but apparently we'll let the courts decide.
"All right, you can't play WMA tunes on other devices, but you CAN play MP3's on iPod, and you can use RealPlayer to manage it in addition to iTunes."
No one can sell legal music from the major labels in mp3 format, so that's a bullshit arguement. No one can make a music player that plays songs bought from iTMS. Apple is clearly leveraging their monopoly. If you think MS is guilty, then you should come to the same conclusion for Apple.
Vote for Pedro
"MS was convicted as a monopoly, but it didn't seem to harm them. They had so much money it didn't matter. Nothing matters to them. Apple, however, will actually have to comply with government orders. This could be a very bad thing for people who enjoy Apple's products."
How is licensing fairplay going to harm their products? That alone should remedy the problem and satisfy the govt., conpetitors, and customers.
Vote for Pedro
"iTMS and the iPod are two separate products that work exclusively with each other.
Exactly. This is no more a monopoly than the XBox 360 + Windows Media Center is a monopoly. If the XBox was the only game console out there, I could understand. But it isn't, there's the PS2 or the GameCube."
Windows and Office are two separate products that work exclusively with each other.
Exactly. This is no more a monopoly than the MacOS + Macintosh harware is a monopoly. If the Macintosh was the only pc out there, I could understand. But it isn't, there's the Windows pc or the Linux PC
Your arguement is what's idioitic
Vote for Pedro
If Apple licensed Fairplay, everyone would be satisfied, and antitrust concerns would go away.
Vote for Pedro
How many music players are there? Thank you. Does Apple make it impossible to use them? Thank you. How many online music stores are there? Thank you. Does Apple make it impossible for any of those other stores to hook up with them? Thank you, and remember, Vote early and Vote often. Oh, I forgot one thing: does Apple make it impossible for Windows users to use an iPod, or iTunes? No? Case closed.
Microsoft had a monopoly, but they did something different.
They threatened to raise the license fees or cancel the Windows licenses on Compaq if Compaq bundled Netscape on the desktop.
Apple has done nothing similar. It would be like Apple refusing to sell iPods to stores that also sold PCs, or raising the price of iPods to stores that also sold other MP3 players. Apple has done neither.
GPL Deconstructed
Apple owns 80+% of the market for digital music players and online digital music. They don't allow any of the music they sell online to play on any other portable music player. They won't allow any other company selling music online with DRM to use Fairplay so that the music will play on the iPod. Guity. Case closed. Don't like it, than don't complain about Microsoft either.
Vote for Pedro
Webgangsta - Sorry for being off topic, but please shoot me an email - I'm interested in one of your earlier comments about writing Wheel of Fortune in PowerPoint.
"f the court were to force Apple to license FairPlay Apple would then have to assume the Support Cost of making sure that songs purchased on iTunes function on other players. This in my opinion is the main reason Apple has locked out other players."
If a song plays on iTunes on a pc, but not on a portable player, the person calls the maker of the portable player, not Apple. Therefore, the support costs are amost entirely on the maker of the portable player.
Vote for Pedro
It is not illegal to be a monopoly. It is not illegal to make certain market-protective actions, even if they result in you becoming a monopoly. It is illegal to make those actions after you're a monopoly. Not before, not way before. After.
Apple's actions are only illegal if Apple has a legal monopoly on this market and Apple's actions are deemed to be in the set of actions monopolies may not perform. Both things must be true for this to be anything at all, pure and simple.
Nobody shed any tears for Microsoft even though they can make all the same arguements for integrating a browser, and not wanting a Netscape browser shipped with Windows.
Vote for Pedro
And why all of a sudden does Real, Yahoo, Napster, Dell, Creative, and any other company want to deal with Apple now?? Where were they when Mac users have been wanting QUALITY equivalents of their other products?? So YES, if Apple hadn't come out with the iPod and [they] did, would you see all of what they are offering now on the Windows platform also on OS X? NO! So why would Jobs say, "OK" now? Besides iTunes is already on Windows anyway. If you don't like DRM then go buy your music from allofmp3.com and put it on your iPod. Problem solved.
cross converting a song to mp3 by first burning to a cd is a hassle
Have you ever tried to read a Word document by running "strings" on it and gluing the resulting mess together, which was the state of the art in reading Word documents on UNIX when the Microsoft trial began? Talk to me not of "hassles" unless they're at least as tough as that.
and degrades the music quality
If you care that much about a slight loss of quality, why are you buying a low quality version instead of a CD in the first place?
as well as wastes a cd-r
So use a CD-RW.
We're talking about buying a single song online
The product is "music", not "a single DRM-crippled song". A copy of the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor on CD, downloaded from the iTMS, downloaded from Rhapsody, or recorded from an FM broadcast is the same song, modulo the quality of reproduction... and the iTMS version is not the best version by that standard... you may even get a better copy from FM radio if you record it without compression.
I'd love to try a subscription service and use it with my iPod, but I can't because Apple doesn't offer one
I'd love to buy an iPod with a jog wheel and thumb pad instead of the stupid click-wheel, because I hate the click wheel, but Apple doesn't make one. Somehow I manage to avoid making the argument that it should be possible to sue Apple to make the product I want.
That's not the story with Real's "Harmony".
s /2004/harmony.html
What happened was that Real reverse engineered the FairPlay copy protection, which basically uses a iPod-specific key to decrypt a song specific key that was encrypted with the iPod specific key (all encrypted songs from ITMS are the same).
So this lets them translate copy protected content from their format to the FairPlay (still copy protected) format.
Here's their press release from 2004: http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/release
And here's proof that they're still doing it today: http://music.guide.real.com/musicstoredevices
-- Terry
Or Type R: Hey, my music store goes way faster when I put this sticker on the back of it!
Just wanted to point out that neither the Zen or napster will work with my mac. When you look at it that way, Apple provides more inter-operability then the other companies do. It looks like Real does now, but I can't use the Zen with it. Sony's webpage doesn't say if their MP3 players will work, but they do say their store still doesn't. Come talk to me when a few more of these company's products/services will work with my mac. this case is rediculous.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Last time I posted this, I got modded up insightful & informative, so some folks think it's a valuable contribution... even if someone else thinks it's trolling.
Granted, I was more verbose last time. Maybe the modders aren't into the whole brevity thing?
I guess it goes to show you, it's hard to read the tone of a contribution online.
I have to re-buy all my lenses again. Does this make Nikon a monopoly?
No because the lenses on their own are useless. They're an accessory, you can't use them without a camera.
iTMS and the iPod are separate.. artificially tied together.
So you think that the key point is the DRM only being available for Apple-approved devices, and the lock-in is in the limit of available portable music devices? Well, that sounds more like a problem with the whole concept of DRM than with the iPod/iTunes lock-in. And that is an issue that belongs at the doorstep of the RIAA, not Apple, as Apple is fighting tooth and nail to keep the prices down. I suspect it's the RIAA that insisted on the iPod-only lock-in.
As for getting music in MP3 format, I legally download tonnes of music in MP3 format from bands. The songs are offered as demos, unpublished rares or as presents to their fans. Granted, most of these artists are independant, but some of these artists that offer mp3's are with major labels like Robbie Williams.
As many posts have pointed out, you have the option to burn your DRM music in audio CD format, but I think the problem is in how the relationship between the iTunes Music Store and the iPod is perceived: the iTMS was conceived of as an acessory to the iPod, as a way for iPod owners to legally buy music without the CD. It's like sueing BMW because the accessories he bought can only be used with the BMW Z3 and not his Ford Taurus.
I think if the recording industry allowed it Apple would ditch DRM in a fraction of a second. There are lots of people around who don't buy songs from iTMS because of the DRM. Apple negotiated hard to get FairPlay to be so liberal, and to be able to be rid of it would be great for them.
I'm not so sure Apple would be willing to ditch the DRM now. Without it, the combination of iTunes and iPod might lose some power since the DRM forces iTunes buyers to buy iPods. And I feel the iTunes store pushes a lot of people towards buying iPods as well. Without the DRM, you're free to buy from any online store and then you'd have more selection on the hardware too.
Webgangsta - Sorry for being off topic, but please shoot me an email - I'm interested in one of your earlier comments about writing Wheel of Fortune in PowerPoint.
Give me an email address and we'll discuss off-list.
If this was Microsoft you would be arguing in the other favor. That's a fact. You seem to be too blind to see the fact that Apple is a monopoly. Fuck you.
I'm f#$king magic!
"Type C: Apple isn't a monopoly but is practicing illegal monopolistic practices
By definition, you can't be practicing "illegal monopolistic practices" unless you're a monopoly."
That's not exactly true. You can have a company that is not yet a monopoly attempting to become a monopoly by using "monopolistic" practices (as in those tending to form a monopoly). Pretend I have a 50% market share in portable music media players that I earned by innovation and superior design. No one else has more than 5% of this market. I tell the music labels that if you want DRM files that run on my players, you must give me an exclusive deal or the best price by a 15% margin. Your player/online music combo is either the only source for music or offers the lowest price to consumers. You marketshare in online music and media players go up. You don't have a monopoly in any market, but it is clear you are attempting to monopolize the portable music media market by using underhanded means. And that's illegal.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
When Microsoft is falsely attacked, I'm a staunch defender. When Microsoft does something good, I'll praise them to the skies.
For example, the basic elements of the Windows user interface operate much better than the ones that Apple uses, the buttons, menus, and other control elements are more intuitive, have better keyboard controls, and are more versatile. I've been bashed by the REAL Apple fanatics for my criticisms of Apple's user interface, on the Mac and on the iPod.
I used iTunes and the iTMS with my non-Apple CD and later MP3 player and it was NOT A PROBLEM. I got an iPod Mini, and I hated it. The clickwheel truly sucks. It's a user interface disaster... the iPod Shuffle is a much better design.
If you want a subscription service, get a different MP3 player. If you bought an iPod and you don't really like it, then stop supporting the monopoly you hate and get a better device. It's not like there's any shortage of music on other online stores, or you can walk the walk and actually try using iTMS music on a non-iPod. Until then, don't tell me you're suffering from a monopoly you don't even TRY and get out from under. Because I have, and it's Not A Problem.
Yes, you're right, the same as with Microsoft was sued--punishing success when no real monopoly exists!
all it takes for an mp3 player to emerge is for it to be better, and marketed as well as the ipod.
Really? Under what law?
It's perfectly legal.
And once again, a practice isn't "monopolistic" unless it's performed by a monopoly.
I don't think that removing DRM would have a major impact on iPod sales. The iPod is successful not because people want to be able to play their iTunes music but because it looks great/is cool/has a fantastic UI. "Without the DRM, you're free to buy from any online store and then you'd have more selection on the hardware too." That's not true. Since iPods can already play non-DRMed music and can't play any DRMed music except for FairPlay, after removing DRM from iTunes the options in terms of sources of music would not change. Unless Apple ditching DRM was accompanied by all the WMA stores ditching it, and then of course they are still in WMA format which means they won't play on the iPod.
And iTMS and the iPod are not "artifically" tied to one another. You can easily use on ewithout another. I guess facts don't matter when you want to bash.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Let's break it down into smaller parts to see where this post goes wrong in so many ways.
The only question of any real importance is "Did the government create this monopoly?"
Monopolies appear in all markets without any interference from gov't. In fact, Gov't has wisely decided that they are bad and frown on overt unfair practices.
There is no way to uniquely define "monopoly prices" or "monopoly behavior"
Yes, there most certainly is. Among other things, monopoly is not a "price taker" but a "price maker." So, a "monopoly price" is the price the monopoly tells everyone they must pay. And "monopoly behavior" can also be defined but I won't because this isn't a community college.
they become less efficient, a competitor will eventually arise
Wrong again. There is NO competitor in a monopolized market. If you mean something else, then you are not talking about a monopoly market.
The rest of what you are saying doesn't make any sense.
I urge you to review the basics of Economics and use the knowledge with more precision and an awareness of the responsibility you have to influence others.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html