Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit
An anonymous reader writes "Twelve years ago Bill Gates had to deal with lawyers questioning him in regards to the Microsoft antitrust case. Now it might be that other tech mogul's turn. Steve Jobs has been ordered to answer questions regarding Apple's iTunes music monopoly. From the article: 'US Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd, based in San Jose, California, ruled on Monday that lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit may question Jobs for a total of two hours. Apple may appeal the decision. A company spokeswoman declined to comment, while attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.'"
Is it just me, or does the person who wrote this title not understand how to properly use the past tense?
If Windows wasn't a good OS, why are everyone using it?
There's an iTunes version of Monopoly?
You think iTunes is *good*?
You must lead a sheltered life.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
I never realized that "good" was a synonym for "buggy, bloated, restrictive piece of shit."
This space available.
Exactly, that bastard Steve forced the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy and allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's where they can be ripped back to MP3 free of the restrictions! We must end his monopoly on rights restricted downloadable music for the iPod! Other companies MUST be free to sell us restricted license music & video for our iPods! Unite!
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Are people dumb enough not to be using Amazon for music? Even then what actually ties you to buying music from iTunes? Hell what ties you to using iTunes to get music on your iPod? I'm doing quite well without it on my Linux machine.
A combination of history, good marketing, vendor lock in, agressive business practise, a few other sprinklings of fairy dust and mostly a public who know no better.
. .
I am not a fan of Apple. ITunes is one of the worst pieces of crap I ever made the mistake of using. However, popularity and lack of research done by users of iTunes does not make a monopoly. Apple makes the software that runs on their hardware. Nobody is forced to use iTunes. As much as I dislike Apple, this is ridiculous.
Then you are free to use Amazon's service (and I guess there may be others).
I'm not really sure how they have a monopoly, when it's dead simple to opt for Amazon, instead. I use iTunes as my player and it's the most convenient podcast client I've found (because I listen to a lot of them), but I've never bought a single song on iTunes. I save that for Amazon. Better quality. Better prices. Re-downloadable. No DRM.
They may have some shitty business practices, when it comes to the operation of their app stores and itunes stores, but they have almost single-handedly kept music from being tied to nothing more than CDs for another twenty years, which is what would have happened if they hadn't leveraged against the music industry to strong-arm them into the 21st century, as they bit and kicked every inch of the way.
Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit
Steve Jobs has been ordered to answer questions regarding Apple's iTunes music monopoly.
It wouldn't be a Slashdot headline if it didn't contradict itself in the summary. He is ordered to answer questions. He hasn't been questioned yet.
Wait, are we talking about Microsoft or Apple now?
If Windows wasn't a good OS, why are everyone using it?
Who's everyone? While Windows market share is still huge, I'm not considering it dominant anymore. Don't look at MacOS when you look at the ratios, look also at iPad, iPhone and whatever else. The tablets will eventually become at least as common as the PCs and Apple kicks arse for now, smart-phones are taking care of more of our needs than ever before and the iPhone is doing well and Android is doing excellently. Slowly we are getting to a point where the PC is not required anymore. For average users a NAS, a PS3/Apple_TV/XBox360 and a tablet are everything that they need at home. PCs are slowly fading from their dominant position and we don't have Windows on any of the devices that I mentioned before.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
Because MS abuses its monopolistic status. You can't migrate over other operating system easily, even if you can. There're still too many incompatibilities. For almost every implementation of technology now there's a classification of Unix-based couple of OS and Windows ones (which was actually Unix based at the beginning). MS diverged its operating system too much and never released any reliable specs for considerably long time to cause vendor lock-in. Not any other implementation could ever existed apart from theirs...
Enough?
There is nothing that ties you to buying music from iTunes and you don't even have to use to get music onto your iPod yet Microsoft has abused its position many times to gain an advantage. The lastest being making Bing the default search engine in their browser they attempt to force onto people. What's worse is when Bing shortly came out my settings for both Firefox and IE were switched to Bing.
That is abusing your market position in one area to gain power in another. Providing one of many options to buy music is not.
Steve Jobs May Be Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
mostly a public who know no better.
I would argue that this applies to iTunes as well.
You need to become a /. editor. The beauty of your words, just grouped together in nonsensical ways. It's just awesome.
Do you realize that because of you, /. accounts above 2M are now assumed to be trolls? You had a good run, but it's finally over. Go away.
most of itunes is DRM free now anyways.
Please remember when all that was happening Apple was alive and well selling desktop computers, and Linux had a huge share of the server (particularly web server) market and a sliver of the desktop market.
Yet, MS was still nailed for being a monopoly. Reason is you do not have to have 100% of a market, just the lion's share.
Am I the only person who still buys their music from a record store?
In a movie, a kid asked the question "What makes America great?"
"Our endless appeals system."
This was the tobacco lobbyist in Thank You for Smoking.
The whole apple music thing has always confused me. Why didn't they go with something already existing? This would make sense, but we know Apple is out to make dollars. By whatever means possible of course.
not without wrecking/killing some more of us, we're told.
mr. jobs is genuinely ill. no doubt his shysters can negotiate his % of the rising holycost. sheesh. let's make sure we leave our domestic ruling class lifenders to go about their 'business' for us/steve/god? are there only 2 channels?
for the rest of us, that's already been worked out. play-dates. photons. out they go. flying out of windows, with rats in their mouths, using their butts as(s) an ignition/propulsion source, & hoping the rats will consent to fueling the remainder of their 'flight'. chariots? honestly? chosen? yikes
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Want to develop software that the iPhone already provides? Good luck. Your own browser version? It's possible, but it'll be slow because only Safari can be fast, and that's how Jobs wants it. Your own email client? Maybe, maybe not. Their rules for letting apps competing with stock applications into the App store aren't really that clear, regardless of what their criteria actually says.
Haven't they learned anything from all of Microsoft's troubles? Or does Jobs think he's immune to all of that nonsense because Apple Lovers don't complain much. Whatever Apple does is the right way to do it. Pass the Kool-Aid please.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
You certainly make a good point about how there are a lot of devices that can / could handle general computing tasks that are not "PCs" (such as tablets and phones) and that those generally don't run Windows. However, today, most of those devices are still considered secondary devices - and many of them require a PC or Mac in order to get their updates. This will change, and not all of them require it. But - right now - most of them are ancillary devices. For example, most updates for the iPhone require it be tethered to a PC / Mac in order to get them. In the Android world, many phones do OTA updates (like my Motorola Droid), but my Wife's HTC Aria just got an update to 2.2.2 and it had to be applied tethered to a PC (not a Mac) and was a wipe and load. I do believe that it won't be too long before most of these devices dispense with that tethered connection. Today though I have to consider a lot of them as secondary devices - and unlike Steve Jobs I can't call them "post PC devices" when they still require a PC / Mac in order to get updates.
Microsoft hate is too firmly infused in my being to make them a saint.
I can not imagine a world where I can not swear at, derride, and hate M$.
I thought it was a compulsary part of the /. account requiremnts.
. .
For average users a NAS, a PS3/Apple_TV/XBox360 and a tablet are everything that they need at home.
So much for convergence. ;-)
I'm not really sure why people say Microsoft have a monopoly, (sic for extraneous comma) when it's dead simple to opt for Linux/BSD/etc, (again, extraneous comma) instead.
Ok, those extraneous commas I had to make use of to lampoon a 4digit UID poster really truly annoy the living shit out of me.
What's the point. He will conveniently forget the dodgy decisions, or they'll be off record.
What dodgy decisions? Apple's contracts with the record companies say they must potect the DRM, Fairplay, used to enforce the record companies IP. Real Networks showed they had broken that DRM by demonstrating in a very public way their ability to encode songs using the Fairplay DRM system. Apple was legally required to make the changes and force competitors to either make their products unencumbered or not playable on the iPod. They have stated this publically, if someone reveals an email showing that Apple was secretly happy the record companies had trapped themselves this way, who is really going to be surprised?
The article title reads: "Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit". QUESTIONED??? This hasn't happened yet, so Jobs has not been questionED. Bullshit troll article title.
If it's about Fairplay there's one problem: Apple's has removed Fairplay DRM for all iTunes audio for over 3 years now (5 years for EMI music). And there's never been anything that keeps any iPods (any version) from playing standard MP3's that were bought from other sources.
You need to become a /. editor. The beauty of your words, just grouped together in nonsensical ways. It's just awesome.
Member, editor. It's all such a thin fuzzy line.
How on earth was Windows "UNIX" based? Home windows (the line beginning with 1.0) certainly wasn't, and if anything NT was OS/2 based. If you are referring to the POSIX subsystem... you can still install the UNIX Subsystem in Windows 7... And you damn well can migrate to another OS easily, so long as your data is readible in both systems. Which largely is going to depend on software, but it's not exactly surprising if some niche software you depend on isn't avaliable. Especially if you're dealing with a closed-source blob, your rant on UNIX compatibility (assuming that you are talking about the same POSIX subsystem/UNIX subsystem that actually exists) wouldn't even help you because POSIX compatibility doesn't mean binary compatibility.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.
Haven't they learned anything from all of Microsoft's troubles?
"Troubles"? You mean both companies being wildly successful? We should all be so lucky to have such problems!
Or does Jobs think he's immune to all of that nonsense because Apple Lovers don't complain much.
Um... they don't complain all that much because they aren't bothered by things that irk you. That's why they are Apple users in the first place. You basically just tried to make the fact that people are happy with Apple seem like a bad thing.
Whatever Apple does is the right way to do it. Pass the Kool-Aid please.
You know, just because people have different opinions than you, that doesn't make them cultists. In fact, *you're* the one making a moral/ethical plea with regards to how Apple manages their iOS ecosystem, if you want to go down this "kool-aid" road...
I know that you jest, but "[forcing] the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy" sounds like something that someone in a monopoly position could do.
Also, while I'm no iTunes expert, I'm pretty sure that you can convert your Apple music to mp3s. My wife does it somehow.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
I really can't make a decision on this with out some quantifiable data. We all know that their are other sources to buy digital music. But how much of the digital music market belongs to iTunes? Not only that how do the sales of digital albums and the sale of CDs.
I did find some data saying that iTunes had 80% of the digital market, but it wasn't from a creditable source nor was it dated. For all that I know it could be from 2002 when it was really the only option.
Does iTunes ever get bundled with anything... e.g. a different piece of apple software or maybe some products?
And are you ever required to use the interface for anything to do anything even if it's free. say maybe a bit like internet explorer?
do they have any kind of exclusive deals with anyone, do they lock people in or out.
Do they in any other way abuse the trust of people?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You think someone with an opinion on technology different from yours is ignorant? You must be a geek.
Exactly, that bastard Steve forced the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy and allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's where they can be ripped back to MP3 free of the restrictions
Points which are irrelevant to the antitrust case in question. Back in 2004, RealPlayer could be used to transfer FairPlay compatible music to the ipod. Apple said "We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws." After that, Apple changed the firmware to break the RealPlayer generated files.
If the Zune had reached 74% market share, and Apple had responded by adding the capability to download itunes music to the Zune, and Microsoft then broke that and blocked Apple from the market, you would be outraged. This is no different.
I only know one person who buys music from iTunes. Everyone else uses other services, rips their own DVDs, or downloads torrents.
Apple is far from having a music monopoly.
But I have always been curious why Apple didn't get sued for getting into the entertainment business. I seem to recall Apple Records of Beatles fame having Apple Computer agree not to get involved in music so that there would be no confusion between the two Apples.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Also, while I'm no iTunes expert, I'm pretty sure that you can convert your Apple music to mp3s. My wife does it somehow.
Only because Apple was able to convince the RIAA to drop the DRM restrictions... Apple was certainly not alone in that, but they did fight the good fight for us in terms of removing DRM on music, even though the associated lock-in was working in their favor to keep people using iTunes/iPod. Unfortunately I see no pressure to do the same with TV/Movies they sell through iTunes, as much as I would like to buy TV a la carte and watch it on my Linux media center. (Hacked AirPlay developments not withstanding)
Member, editor. It's all such a thin fuzzy line.
Rejoice: a new oxymoron is born.
(thin line - accidentally cross it because it takes no time, but very well defined. Fuzzy line - is non-trivial to cross but, being fuzzy, there is no way to tell the exact moment one actually crossed it) .
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
It's hard to describe how much Real hate I'm overcoming in order to say: That's pretty shitty.
The enemies of Democracy are
People interested in this news item might be interested in this relatively brief overview (considering lawyers' tendency to logorrhea) of antitrust and IP rights bundling put out by the US government. Enjoy!
See my sig.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's where they can be ripped back to MP3 free of the restrictions!
Free of high frequency components too! Plus bonus transcode artifacts!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
iTunes is bundled with every Mac. It's not bundled with anything else though. When you buy an iPod, iPhone or iPad, you have to manually download iTunes if you use something other then OS X. A number of years ago, iTunes was also bundled with HP computers via a mutual business agreement to allow HP to sell HP branded iPods. iTunes sued to be bundled with iPods as well, via a CD in the package.
Keep in mind bundling is different in this case though vs when Microsoft was doing it. Apple iTunes has only been bundled with Apple products or with a company they had an agreement with. Microsoft IE was forced to be bundled with Dell computers, or Compaq, etc due to their agreement to buy OEM copies of Windows. If the OEM (Dell/Compaq etc) didn't want IE, or wanted to hide it and instead bundle Netscape Navigator, Microsoft penalized the OEM. And this was after Microsoft had already been in trouble for forcing OEMs to buy a copy of Windows for every machine they shipped, even if it was loaded with a different OS such as OS/2 Warp.
I never realized that "good" was a synonym for "buggy, bloated, restrictive piece of shit."
You must be new here.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Really, no it's not. Look at it from Apple's perspective (or anyone who creates something for that matter). They created a music manager (itunes), a store, and the portable device used to play them. Apple considered that line a single product. In their view Windows had pretty much the same setup (if more open) in that there were little used music stores for windows media player, and mp3 players that plugged into windows. In their view real was perfectly free to make their own store, their own manager, and their own portable devices (or license a portable device from someone else) and compete with them even on the mac os.
I guess the TL;DR: is that instead of building a burger king next to the mcdonalds, Real tried to set up a counter inside the mcdonalds instead of doing the real hard work and competing fair and square.
There are plenty of online music stores with competitive pricing. Only in the fevered imagination of Apple-bashers is this a monopoly.
Steve is receiving sporadic medical treatments and may not be in the best shape for interrogation.
If you use Windows. If you use anything else, you're on your own.
Hey, did you write the headline for this article?
I don't care why you're posting AC
That is a really twisted view you have there. The iPod and iTunes are separate products. If they weren't, you wouldn't be able to buy/use one without the other.
An accurate analogy would be reusing a McDonald's cup for your drink at Burger King. Although it might look a bit weird, there is nothing wrong with it.
As you point out, bundling in and of itself isn't a monopolistic activity. Using your leverage to wedge everyone else out and force your stuff to be bundled with third party deliverables may be considered such, depending on circumstances.
Additionally, so would doing things like making special APIs that only iTunes has access to which accelerates speed and response and reliability, while not providing the same access (since you're the OS maker) that other application developers would benefit from for their music players. Or worse, if you not only provided yourself special higher-performing API stuff, but impacted the one you allowed everyone else to use.
As far as we know, Apple isn't doing that, either. Hell, anyone who uses iTunes on a regular basis can tell you the last thing it seems to have is access to anything meant to improve speed.
I think about the best claim one could make is that Apple is a bit obsessed with what is and isn't allowed to be sold in their store and in some cases at what price and under what conditions. So does Wal-mart. Not sure what's wrong with that. I might see an issue if they were the only game in town, but Amazon is a very strong competitor. Of course, Amazon has their own problems where that's concerned. Perhaps nothing "monopolistic", but certainly tending towards "unfriendly to the author/content-creator/publisher". And even if Apple didn't have any competition, I wouldn't see a problem unless they didn't have any competition, because they unfairly undermined and prevented any said competition from popping up through nefarious means.
Who's everyone? While Windows market share...
Dude, I started reading "Who's everyone?" and immediately thought that the next sentence was the catch phrase of MichaelKristopeitXXX
Microsoft developed an OS which it sold to its consumers, who were primarily OEMs. This OS had features, one of which was "It works with almost all the software your customers will see for sale in the brick and mortar software shop down the street, so you can market your hardware to people who may not be familiar with computers." In order to ensure this feature, it made contracts with its OEMs, who were free to accept, decline, or negotiate parts of this deal. The deal exchanged discounts on the cost Microsoft would charge its customers (who, again, were willing participants) for guarantees that its customers would only sell Microsoft's product. In my view, the only difference between this and what Apple does is that Microsoft's customers (who, again, are predominantly OEMs) negotiated and agreed to their deal, whereas Apple's customers didn't have a choice.
The canonical example of an anti-trustworthy action would be if a car company decided to make a special connector between the fuel tank and the gas pump, so you would only be able to use the special gas station set up by the car's manufacturer. Meanwhile, you cannot (well, you can, but Apple says it's hacking and will try to block you) put songs on your iPod without using the special media manager that the manufacturer made. (Or alternately, you can't put media from your iTunes library on an MP3 player unless it's a special device made by the manufacturer.) Your car cannot accomplish its primary purpose (driving from Point A to Point B) without gasoline, and your MP3 player cannot accomplish its primary purpose (playing media) without a media manager, so this is probably a better analogy. It's EXACTLY what Apple is doing.
Finally, isn't this largely an Open Source/Free Software site? We demand APIs for everything else so that we can use a generic X with something else because the default solution doesn't meet our requirements. Why not for iTunes?
People aren't buying my music.
Society use your Sciences
Member, editor. It's all such a thin fuzzy line.
Rejoice: a new oxymoron is born.
/. editors - they do get paid, while members don't, isn't it?
(thin line - accidentally cross it because it takes no time, but very well defined. Fuzzy line - is non-trivial to cross but, being fuzzy, there is no way to tell the exact moment one actually crossed it) .
I think he was saying the /. editors' members were thin fuzzy lines.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement). MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
In reality, the right to create things that are compatible has been upheld by numerous court rulings to the point that it would be pointless to even bring the question of interoperability to court again. In the RealPlayer case, what Apple did was legally actionable. They created and to some degree control their market, but they don't necessarily have a right to destroy the opportunities of others to be compatible with their market.
With that said, just as in the case of DR DOS vs Microsoft, the plaintiff needs to prove that the incompatibility was introduced intentionally to block the competitor from the marketplace. DR DOS, if I recall correctly, was able to prove that sufficiently and I have little doubt that Real will be able to prove it as well.
I know that you jest, but "[forcing] the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy" sounds like something that someone in a monopoly position could do.
It sounds like something anyone with a store could do. "Let me sell for my price or I'm not buying anything."
The fact that the record companies gave in only means that they wanted to be in the store more than they wanted to charge something other than 99 cents. That could be because Apple has OMFG XBOX HEUG market control, or it could just be because the record companies weren't really that opposed to it.
That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If iTunes was the only place to buy music, it could be a monopoly. Just because some artists are exclusive to one store does not make that store a monopoly.
Actually you should have looked up the word monopoly in a dictionary before commenting on it. From Wikipedia
In economics, a monopoly [removed the phonetic stuff because /. wont render it] exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it
It does not say 100%, it says "sufficient control". Apple has this in the digital music distribution market as it can, much like MS in the OS market dictate how other people can sell their products.
Now being a monopoly is not illegal, abusing your monopoly is, Apple's been skirting this for a long time but staying 1 step ahead of an actual investigation until now. Apple has enough sway that it gets to dictate what price other stores can sell at, that is a clear abuse, even if the publishers are in on it, it's still abuse.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.
McDonald's produces Big Macs; they capitalize on production. Safeway buys stock and, having bought them, resells at higher prices, capitalizing on distribution and easy access.
Apple and Microsoft distribute software from third parties; they provide developers access to a marketplace, which is generally good for the consumer. But essentially, they're capitalizing on the fact that they were proactive in preventing you from getting the software anywhere else. By restricting the marketplace artificially, they are creating a monopoly where one need not exist. They may be allowed, and in fact it may be an excellent idea for everyone involved, but it's not an issue of "supposed to".
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
No, it just reeks of bias and damages your appearance of objectivity.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
I think you're confusing "their own products" with everything in the entire world that can be used with their products. Sears has a "monopoly" on Craftsman screw drivers. They don't have a monopoly on screws that can be used with Craftsman screw drivers. And if they tried to leverage their strong market position in screw drivers to monopolize the market for screws, well, did you see what happened when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows? And Microsoft didn't even try to prohibit you from using other browsers.
I don't see what the problem is. Yes, you should enforce the law against all of the companies that are breaking it.
I don't see what the problem is. Yes, you should enforce the law against all of the companies that are breaking it.
Are you really sure about that? I mean, it didn't come up until it became fashionable to hate Apple.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I think we all see it finally - Apple and Google are the new bad guys. Even Microsoft looks like a saint compared to them.
Microsoft couldn't look like a saint if it was standing next to every serial killer that Hollywood has ever produced while wearing the cutesiest Disney outfit they could steal from a drunk Magic Kingdom employee.
There may be an issue with exclusive content deals.. That is to get some content (e.g. from the open university) you need iTunes and that's the only way you can get it.
That's a bit like Apple making the Open University make their customers use iTunes.
If that's done to stifle competition then that's a breach of trust....
Price fixing may also be another thing.. and they do do some price fixing of sorts.
Format restrictions, or preference.
I think there was one point where Apple was pushing software on people using one of their other products through automatic updates.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I tried to purchase an Mp3 from amazon, it wanted me to use their default downloader. Which was not compatible with 64 bit linux
So while I don't have to use itunes specifically to use the IPod. . Linux is not an option for it at present
It is possible to get the Amazon MP3 downloader up and running on 64-bit Ubuntu -- I use it on my home machine running 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04. I don't recall which exact libraries you need, but this hitlist should get you started.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Remember the day when Apple Computer reached an agreement with the Beetles' company that in order to avoid a lawsuit over their name they would NOT get into the music business? Wonder what ever happened to that?
Like Walmart?
Windows is bundled with new computer systems. Most people use Windows because it came with their computer or they use Windows at school or work.
Is Windows a good OS? That depends on how one defines a good OS. Ubuntu is a good OS, but only a select few out of the masses (we computer hobbyists, geeks, nerds, gurus, the GNU dirty hippies) use it or install it for others.
Back on a related topic, Apple does not have a monopoly on music or videos. Apple has a lot of competition. For example Amazon.com MP3 and audio CD MP3 files import into the iPod and iPhone and one can synch those up.
I used to be a big critic of Apple, but now I love my iPod and buy music from iTunes, Amazon.com, audio CDs and the like.
If the companies are breaking the law then it should be enforced. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you whether they are all as a matter of law doing something illegal. But they're certainly doing something unsavory -- using products in one market to control another.
People are talking about it more with regard to Apple because Apple is the more serious case. They have a stronger market position in their market than their competitors -- none of the three consoles is unambiguously the market leader in that market, whereas iTunes could easily be described as such for music download stores and iPod/iOS for music players. And having two related markets makes the problem worse, because they make it so iOS only works properly with iTunes and vice versa. They're also applying the DENIED stamp to a lot more apps than any of the console makers, and especially problematic is that they deny apps that compete with their own.
But they are all in the same boat. What Sony is doing with the PS3 right now in my opinion should be getting them in hot water -- they're essentially blocking third parties from making software for the PS3 without their approval, and they're denying software that competes with their own. Imagine the Linux people get the SPUs unlocked and then small game publishers start making PS3 games that run on PS3 Linux without needing Sony's permission -- that would increase competition in the marketplace. Outwardly trying to prevent it sounds pretty anticompetitive to me.
"Additionally, so would doing things like making special APIs that only iTunes has access to which accelerates speed and response and reliability,"
Can a third party client use the API to connect to whatever/wherever iTunes get's it's stuff from? or is it vendor locked into Apple?
Are the files that are downloaded restricted to something which requires a none-free license from Apple to be able to use and use at full speed? Putting competitors at a disadvantage, and not one purely based on the un-wrapped content provided by the service.
I wouldn't see a problem unless they didn't have any competition, because they unfairly undermined and prevented any said competition from popping up through nefarious means.
A monopoly doesn't need to be a big monopoly nor broad reaching. Patents and copy-right are both forms of limited monopoly.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Exactly like Walmart.
Finally, isn't this largely an Open Source/Free Software site? We demand APIs for everything else so that we can use a generic X with something else because the default solution doesn't meet our requirements. Why not for iTunes?
itunes is free...
iTunes TV is woeful quality... it's like they took the FAQ page from a 1337 release group in 2001 and made it their delivery spec.
there's a lot of services that are a ton better.
"Apple considered that line a single product"
your analogy would be apt if, instead of Real setting up a counter in the McDonalds, Apple declared the Burger King to be part of it's own product line.
... or change the drop-down box in Preferences->General->Import Settings to 'MP3' and buy real coasters instead of making your own.
off topic dude.
we're not talking about browsers.
we're not talking about Microsoft's past (and probably present) tactics.
this one's about Apple.
Apple are abusing their position.
Questions are being asked.
Deal with it.
I buy my music from Amazons mp3 store. Who says Itunes has a monopoly?
I just want to remind some of our American friends that for the large majority of people outside of the US, we CAN'T use Amazon for music because Amazon are idiots and still haven't expanded availability of MP3 purchases for people outside of the US. I live in Australia and tried to purchase an MP3 from Amazon, and instead got to a page showing the message
(Amazon MP3 purchases are limited to U.S. customers.)
Short of musicians like Jonathan Coulton who have their own pages and can provide to anyone in the world, iTunes is the ONLY commercial marketplace of DRM-free content in my supposedly first-world country. Hence, they have a monopoly. I will not play Apple for that though.
wow, mods are on crack .... their sarcasm detector broken?
I think he was saying the /. editors' members were thin fuzzy lines.
As I believe the /. editors are in no way resembling the The FSM (Blessed be His Noodly Appendages), I think the correct expression should be /. editors' limbs were thin fuzzy lines.
he was saying the
But anyway, this is quite OT.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I read this headline, and all I can think of is Steve Jobs being questioned in a tuxedo with a top hat and a cane, like this guy: http://bit.ly/fVUUOJ
I know that you jest, but "[forcing] the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy" sounds like something that someone in a monopoly position could do.
Interesting point. So what does it tell us that somehow the record companies have actually forced a 69, 99, or 129 cent pricing policy upon the monopoly?
Fandroids hate facts.
...but not open source.
I was making a crude joke about their penises. But now I had to explain it. :(
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.
No, it just reeks of bias and damages your appearance of objectivity.
Rubbish, if you have a problem with one company you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified, nor does that have any impact on your objectivity. Sure the same argument applies to many other companies, but the fact that he didn't seek out every other company that it could potentially apply to (and neither did you) doesn't damage his original argument or objectivity in the slightest.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
Who's everyone? While Windows market share...
Dude, I started reading "Who's everyone?" and immediately thought that the next sentence was the catch phrase of MichaelKristopeitXXX
which one?
'cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more feeb'?
'your completely pathetic'?
or, my personal favorite, the patently false:
'you are NOTHING'? (you tend to get that when you really nail him)
Apple has no more a "monopoly" over iOS than Safeway has over what they carry on their store. It's also just as "artificial" (there's nothing inherent about the land upon which Safeway builds there stores that gives them a "monopoly" over its use).
If you aren't allowed to control your own products and offer them under your own terms, within a reasonable legal framework, what's the point of proprietary products in the first place?
But it doesn't get around the fact this was a MAJOR concession by the record companies, at a time they were trying to argue that ripping your CD's to digital format was illegal, signing agreements that gave you the right to burn custom mix CD's. And that several record companies initially refused the deal to pressure Steve jobs into accepting their terms at a time when the iPod's dominance wasn't a given.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
I think you're confusing "their own products" with everything in the entire world that can be used with their products. Sears has a "monopoly" on Craftsman screw drivers. They don't have a monopoly on screws that can be used with Craftsman screw drivers.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
There are much better analogies, like video game consoles, which have even more stringent restrictions than iOS. This shouldn't be a surprise to readers of a nerd-oriented site like Slashdot.
And if they tried to leverage their strong market position in screw drivers to monopolize the market for screws, well, did you see what happened when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows? And Microsoft didn't even try to prohibit you from using other browsers.
Two problems here:
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod.
That wouldn't seem to be much of a sticking point considering all music from iTunes has been DRM free for years now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)
you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified...
Yup.
nor does that have any impact on your objectivity...
Uh huh. 10+ years of this very public and obvious behaviour going on, but it's not worth criticizing until a company that's fashionable to hate suddenly does it. Super objective.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified...
Yup.
So why are you suggesting that the argument doesn't 'hold water' until it has been applied to other companies? That's obviously a load of shit.
nor does that have any impact on your objectivity...
Uh huh. 10+ years of this very public and obvious behaviour going on, but it's not worth criticizing until a company that's fashionable to hate suddenly does it. Super objective.
Or until that behavior actually affects you in a negative way. It's pretty obvious that you are the one lacking objectivity here, you're suggesting the argument is invalid because it hasn't been applied to companies other than apple, when in fact that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument whatsoever.
Microsoft was in such a strong position that their negotiating with the OEMs consisted of, "If you want a competitive deal, you don't sell any operating system besides Windows (and before that it was MS-DOS). Not much of a choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Microsoft couldn't look like a saint if it was standing next to every serial killer that Hollywood has ever produced while wearing the cutesiest Disney outfit they could steal from a drunk Magic Kingdom employee.
So Microsoft is a serial killer groupie that gets kids drunk and then engages in crossdressing?
What's wrong with the Monopoly games on the iTunes store? Seems like the licensing is okay.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Sherman Act Section 2:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...
I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.
As for not being able to keep Angry Birds off of Android, that's not the problem. The problem is that they can keep Chrome off of iOS (or disadvantage it vs. Safari), or prohibit competing app stores for iPhone (thereby making Apple the exclusive distributor, with it's 30% cut), or prevent you from using Skype or Skype features in exchange for consideration from AT&T, on and on.
When a problem isn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, then the problem you describe isnt actually the problem you percieve. In other words: You are not being objective and it's hard to take your principled posturing seriously. It's like listening to Microsoft talk about the dangers of Open Source.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Well, MS ~did~ manage to make most of the world addicted 'users' of their half-baked product, and XP ~did~ have a rather vamped-up 'Playskool' look about it...
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
I thought you were making a joke about how /. users shaved their 'lady parts' ; )
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
Fuck using some proprietary bullshit like Apple Lossless, just use FLAC.
(Or alternately, you can't put media from your iTunes library on an MP3 player unless it's a special device made by the manufacturer.)
Really? This makes no sense. Please elaborate. I've never used an iPod and only used iTunes once to initialize an iPad for my school.
Put identity in the browser.
Apple, Sony, Nintendo, printer manufacturers, and any other company that appears to lock competitors out of interoperability (specifically allowed by the DMCA) using DRM should be investigated and punished if the allegations are true. This has been my position (and the position of a large number of Slashdotters) for years, and is one of our major arguments against DRM. Does that statement make me objective in your eyes? Good. It should. We have to start somewhere. Apple seems as good a place as any.
Put identity in the browser.
People have been singing this tune for years. The government didn't decide to move for years, just as it didn't move on MS until long after the monopoly was cemented and the action did no good. Government is slow and predictable that way.
As far as I know, it's not fashionable to hate on Apple. In fact, the numbers are better than ever. Maybe on Slashdot, yeah, but we don't hold a lot of sway with governments, or more of the world would be running on FOSS.
Put identity in the browser.
When a problem isn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, then the problem you describe isnt actually the problem you percieve.
Firstly, i didn't say it wasn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, you made that up. And in fact i didn't even make the original comment.
In other words: You are not being objective and it's hard to take your principled posturing seriously. It's like listening to Microsoft talk about the dangers of Open Source.
No, because i never said that at all at any point in the discussion, you just put that in there.
I simply said that just because he makes that argument against apple and not against other parties that the argument applies to doesn't make the argument any less valid, it may make him ignorant, it may make him an anti-apple guy.
You seem to think it affects the validity of the argument, and that is rubbish, you just want it to apply to those other parties before apple. But in fact it applies equally to all those parties so why do you care so much that everyone else cops it before apple? Why does it matter so much to you?
Ripping from a CD is not illegal in any way shape or form if you own the CD and rip it for your own use.
It is in some countries, e.g. here in the UK, although everybody realises it is stupid, I don't think anybody has ever been prosecuted and there is talk of fixing the law.
However, everybody ignores the law so, yes, buying a CD and ripping it is, and always was, a perfectly viable "competitor" to iTunes.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Copyright is a monopoly. DRM is a monopoly. How can you say that iTunes is NOT A MONOPOLY? It combines BOTH.
Now, feel free to say that this sort of monopoly is at least warranted, but please STOP saying that it can't be! 'cos, like, you can buy music, man"
Because Apple prevents competition with legal threats.
...and if they hadn't, they'd be getting legal threats from the recording industry, who (at the time) only allowed Apple to sell their music on the promise of secure DRM. Providing alternate ways to sync music to the iPod circumvents this. That's changed for music - but the issue has now moved on to video and software.
The monopoly/cartel here is not Apple, but the recording industry, who were trying to force DRM on the public. The trouble is with DRM - unlike encryption - is that its very hard to implement in an "open" way, because if the user has access to the code, they can extract an unencrypted version. Actually, DRM is pretty futile full stop.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
He has something like a few weeks to live. Let the guy be in peace.
The only monopoly, is that they played by the rules from the get go, had napster done so too, they would have been on top today, limewire is the same, no one is charging for downloads, so they get nabbed, meanwhile itunes is not charging enough for the artist to get enough money, but enough to keep the record cos off their backs, so they get to keep playing without getting 75 trillion dollar lawsuits.
Thats the only monopoly here....
If the Zune had reached 74% market share, and Apple had responded by adding the capability to download itunes music to the Zune, and Microsoft then broke that and blocked Apple from the market, you would be outraged. This is no different.
The problem with your MS analogy is that MS didn't get in trouble by keeping their lock-in on their own products per se. They got in trouble for tactics they used against their competitors to maintain that lock-in. MS does have to make an Office for Linux or AIX for example. What MS can't do (but did) is threaten any of their OEMs not to install OpenOffice or receive higher prices.
But as it stands, Apple would have been in legal trouble if they did what you described and MS would be justified in breaking their hacks.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What bias? There is news about apple but we should be talking about everyone else? So we should be talking about Apple every time another company does something bad? I suggest that for every news we look at the companies involved in said news. It just looks more logical to me...
Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.
The copyright holders would disagree with you. Whether you think DRM is evil or not, it has a purpose from the standpoint of those that own the copyrights. Seeing that Apple nor Real nor MS owns said copyrights, they had to use DRM in order to be able to sell music.
You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.
Depends on what you consider an alternative. You can get music in a variety of different ways none of which involves Apple. You just can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple. They key difference is that MS took anti-competitive steps to prevent other browsers from getting any share. Threatening OEMs to raise their prices if they installed Netscape. Apple never said you can't use RealPlayer or their music; they said you have to use iTunes to use their iPods. MS was forced to offer an alternative because it was a punishment.
I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.
The best analogy I have is murder. You don't have to murder someone to be convicted of attempted murder; however, you still have to take steps towards an actual murder. Thinking about it isn't enough. Buying a weapon isn't enough. In the case of Apple, remember this isn't the state v Apple. This is a civil action. It's up to the plaintiff to provide enough evidence. Apple breaking Real's hack of their system may not be enough.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
ITunes only works with iDevices. Most songs people have in their iTunes library are MP3s, which play on all kinds of devices. (For that matter, so do unprotected AACs.) I have a Creative brand MP3 player which came with its own iTunes-like software, but I use Windows Media Player to fill it up instead, partly because if I were to get a non-Creative brand MP3 player, my library would still work.
Finally, isn't this largely an Open Source/Free Software site? We demand APIs for everything else so that we can use a generic X with something else because the default solution doesn't meet our requirements. Why not for iTunes?
itunes is free...
Now read the other 37 words of the quote, moron.
You have no idea if the OP had actually acknowledged problems caused by other companies. You were just spouting because he didn't express them in the same post as the one about Apple.
You're the one with no objectivity. You're the one that should STFU. Go make a hole in an apple and fuck it.
The copyright holders would disagree with you. Whether you think DRM is evil or not, it has a purpose from the standpoint of those that own the copyrights.
It seems to me the copyright holders want it for only the reason that Apple does -- because it suppresses competition. It's not like DRM actually stops music or movies from getting on The Pirate Bay. It does, however, allow concentration of the distribution channel -- if everybody has an iPod and iPod music only comes from iTunes and the RIAA can get good placement in iTunes for their artists over perhaps better independent artists, hey, that's great for them compared to having to contend with a thousand independent music outlets where indie bands get a fair shake.
Depends on what you consider an alternative. You can get music in a variety of different ways none of which involves Apple. You just can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple.
One way or another you're contradicting yourself here. Is it that Apple et al need DRM because you can't sell music without DRM? Because if so then "can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple" is pretty much the same thing as saying "can't get music without Apple." And if not then the DRM is only there for the benefit of Apple.
Apple never said you can't use RealPlayer or their music; they said you have to use iTunes to use their iPods.
Microsoft never said you can't use Netscape; they said you have to use IE to use Windows [without a Netscape tax]. It seems to me what Apple does is worse -- Microsoft was making it more expensive, Apple is just prohibiting it outright.
Apple breaking Real's hack of their system may not be enough.
Maybe, but that is hardly the only thing they've done. Again, trying to leverage iTunes to dominate music players and iPod to dominate music stores, then trying to use iPod/iOS to dominate app stores, etc.
Apple uses it's iTunes monopoly to force me to buy iPads, over and over again. I don't even know how to use a computer but I have all these iPads stacked up in the living room. I'm afraid they may fall over and hurt my dog.
Exactly. If they would just pass laws that all computing purchasing decisions have to be approved by a certified /. geek (with appropriate fees paid and cool stamps applied to customer's network passport), we could get out of this whole Microsoft/Apple/Google mess. The world would run on NetBSD, everyone would roll their own browser (using approved render engine) and vi would be the text editor. My God, it'll be beautiful!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Oh, sure, go and try and run 6 monitors with a internal 4 drive array and 32 GB of RAM on your tablet. No one will want these once they realize how limited they are.
I drank what? -- Socrates
*golf clap*
I drank what? -- Socrates
Are people dumb enough not to be using System 9 for an operating system? Even then what actually ties you to buying software for Windows? Hell what ties you to using Office to read documents at work? I'm doing quite well without it on my Linux machine*.
*: Circa the Microsoft antitrust trials.
Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit
That's nonsense. There's no way that Jobs will be in a suit while he's being questioned. He's going to wear his trademark turtlenecks. But it's possible that he'll have an "iTunes Monopoly" banner printed on it, just for the heck of it.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.
Phones that run software do have uses for these things. I can't believe you just stated that security and licenses are only there for "overly controlling and anti-competitive" purposes.
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.
Outside of the jurisdiction being discussed. I.e., it doesn't apply.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Sherman Act Section 2:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...
The iPhone is not "any part of the trade or commerce", it's a product. It's fucking insane to say a company or person can't control their own products.
I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.
As for not being able to keep Angry Birds off of Android, that's not the problem. The problem is that they can keep Chrome off of iOS (or disadvantage it vs. Safari), or prohibit competing app stores for iPhone (thereby making Apple the exclusive distributor, with it's 30% cut), or prevent you from using Skype or Skype features in exchange for consideration from AT&T, on and on.
You still haven't explained why this should be illegal.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
So I can develop whatever I want for Nintendo's systems, Playstation 3 or Xbox 360? Not every system is open and is meant to be. Just as Apple will happily let you do what you want on a Mac and even help sell / promote your GPL'ed app in their store but on the system where performance and security matter more they don't. It only makes sense. It certainly makes more sense than home consoles being locked down.
It's called an example of actual market abuse. Where as iTunes in no way forces me to use a certain format or get their music from their store. I have no more music from iTunes itself but I have used it to put my years worth of MP3s from various sources include Amazon onto an iPod though I typically don't even use iTunes and put my music onto my iPod through other software.
Apple don't even require you to own their own hardware to use iTunes. You can use Windows. The only place where they do place restrictions are with apps and to be quite honest that makes complete sense given the fact power and data usage are much bigger issues on mobile devices.
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
It seems to me the copyright holders want it for only the reason that Apple does -- because it suppresses competition. It's not like DRM actually stops music or movies from getting on The Pirate Bay. It does, however, allow concentration of the distribution channel -- if everybody has an iPod and iPod music only comes from iTunes and the RIAA can get good placement in iTunes for their artists over perhaps better independent artists, hey, that's great for them compared to having to contend with a thousand independent music outlets where indie bands get a fair shake.
Then why did Apple fight so hard to sell DRM free music? That kinda defeats your argument. See from the standpoint of Apple and anyone who sells a player, the music was a feature to sell more players. Selling music with DRM actually is a hindrance as they have to maintain an authentication system for as long as the player exists. With no DRM, Apple doesn't have to worry about it for music for upcoming generations of players.
One way or another you're contradicting yourself here. Is it that Apple et al need DRM because you can't sell music without DRM? Because if so then "can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple" is pretty much the same thing as saying "can't get music without Apple." And if not then the DRM is only there for the benefit of Apple.
Can you get music without Apple? Yes. If you wanted to use Apple's DRMed music you had to use Apple. Can you get Unix servers? Yes. Can you get an AIX without IBM. No.
Microsoft never said you can't use Netscape; they said you have to use IE to use Windows [without a Netscape tax]. It seems to me what Apple does is worse -- Microsoft was making it more expensive, Apple is just prohibiting it outright.
Did you read above? MS did not get in trouble for lock-in per se. They got in trouble for anti-competitive acts to protect that lock-in. Threatening OEMs not to install Netscape was one example. Threatening Intel not to create a Java VM was another. Apple has never threatened it's users not to use Real. What they did was prevent Real from using their iPod system as it was not intended. Can you install Solaris on an AIX machine? As a user, yes. Can you run a business that does it? I think Oracle and IBM would both send their lawyers against you.
Maybe, but that is hardly the only thing they've done. Again, trying to leverage iTunes to dominate music players and iPod to dominate music stores, then trying to use iPod/iOS to dominate app stores, etc.
Can you today walk into any Best Buy and get a non-Apple music player? Can you today get music online or offline without ever dealing with Apple? The answer to both is yes. There is a difference in being number #1 because everyone selects your product and being #1 because consumers had no choice. You seem to think it is the former and not the latter.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
there's a lot of services that are a ton better.
Are any of them available in Australia? All of the ones I've found are only available in the US, which is rather inconvenient. Hence, piracy is the way to get them.
The media here keeps going on and on about how Australia's piracy problem is out of control - the reality is that our legal options to obtain this content are extremely limited and involve spending ridiculous amounts of money on Foxtel (cable TV) for a "package" of channels that hold absolutely no interest to me. You can't just say "I want the free to air channels, plus Sci-Fi and National Geographic" - to get all that you need the basic package ($40/month) + documentaries package ($20/month) plus the entertainment package ($30/month) and suddenly you're paying $70 a month just to watch the occasional doco or sci fi show (which usually are repeats anyway)?
Fuck that. The only legal option is iTunes here, and the quality of the downloads from there are just shithouse. Hence why there's so many pirates in Australia.
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.
The person I replied to used the word "monopoly". I didn't just conjure it up out of thin air.
As the sole supplier of their platform, they have the right to dictate the terms of that platform. That's not a monopoly in the anti-trust sense of the term.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.
I'm refuting both that Apple has a monopoly, and that they are abusing it. It's their platform, it's their rules. My point is that there's nothing inherently illegal about this.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.
Phones that run software do have uses for these things. I can't believe you just stated that security and licenses are only there for "overly controlling and anti-competitive" purposes.
In what way is that not true? By "security" I am obviously talking about security against the user rather than against outside attackers. And software license agreements of the variety included with almost all commercial software provide the customer with basically nothing and take many things away -- I don't need any EULA controlling what I do when I buy a book at the store, so why do I need one when I buy software on the internet?
Outside of the jurisdiction being discussed. I.e., it doesn't apply.
OK, so the remedy was the EU remedy rather than the US remedy. It was the same conduct that got them into trouble in the US.
The iPhone is not "any part of the trade or commerce", it's a product. It's fucking insane to say a company or person can't control their own products.
What's "fucking insane" is to say that a company can control their products after selling them. They sold it, someone paid them, it isn't theirs anymore.
You still haven't explained why this should be illegal.
You don't understand why it should be illegal for a company to leverage a dominant market position in one market into a dominant market position in another market?
It's because we like competition. Monopolies are great for monopolists and horrible for everyone else. We want choice -- choice in web browsers for Windows as well as for iOS, choice in whether we use VOIP over WiFi or cellular voice service, choice in whose app store we buy apps from or sell our apps through, etc. We don't want a single entity or a concentrated oligopoly having control over who wins and loses in the marketplace. We don't want app developers to have to choose between paying 30% to Apple or losing access to half their customers. It's basic free market theory -- capitalism only works when there is competition; monopoly and oligopoly "capitalism" is nothing but corporatocracy.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?
Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.
It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place. Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it. If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.
Then why did Apple fight so hard to sell DRM free music?
Apple wanted to get rid of the DRM the record companies wanted, not the DRM that Apple wants. You still can't run programs not approved by Apple on your iPod/iOS device without jailbreaking. They each want different forms of DRM because they each sell different products. That doesn't mean either of them actually expects it to stop "piracy" or is interested in it primarily for that reason.
Can you get music without Apple? Yes. If you wanted to use Apple's DRMed music you had to use Apple. Can you get Unix servers? Yes. Can you get an AIX without IBM. No.
OK, let's try this.
Premise: DRM is useful and necessary for distributing content.
Premise: The only DRM supported by iPods is Apple DRM.
Premise: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can distribute music with Apple DRM.
Conclusion: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can sell music for iPods, because DRM is required and Apple has the only DRM supported by iPods.
To escape the conclusion one of the premises must be wrong, most plausibly the first one. If DRM is not required then it should be discontinued. In some cases (music) it has been -- great. In those cases the DRM doesn't exist so it stops being anti-competitive (obviously). But to the extent that it still exists, the analogous conclusion still applies -- he who controls the DRM controls the market.
Did you read above? MS did not get in trouble for lock-in per se. They got in trouble for anti-competitive acts to protect that lock-in. Threatening OEMs not to install Netscape was one example. Threatening Intel not to create a Java VM was another. Apple has never threatened it's users not to use Real. What they did was prevent Real from using their iPod system as it was not intended.
Why do you think that what Apple intended has anything to do with anything? If Microsoft intended that no browsers competing with Internet Explorer should run on Windows, and implemented technical measures to prevent it, you would not see that as an anti-competitive act to protect lock-in? And you would accept that competing browsers trying to work around it are doing something wrong? How is Apple's behavior different?
Can you install Solaris on an AIX machine? As a user, yes. Can you run a business that does it? I think Oracle and IBM would both send their lawyers against you.
Nobody can install Solaris on an "AIX machine" because they run on completely different processor architectures, no Solaris drivers exist for IBM hardware, etc. But let's say that I, as a business, go to IBM and order up an x86-based xSeries server and then I buy myself a copy of x86 Solaris to run on it. You think they're going to send lawyers? IBM will be happy for the hardware sale and Oracle will send a promotional brochure for "Oracle Solaris Premier Subscriptions for Non-Oracle x86 Systems".
Can you today walk into any Best Buy and get a non-Apple music player? Can you today get music online or offline without ever dealing with Apple? The answer to both is yes. There is a difference in being number #1 because everyone selects your product and being #1 because consumers had no choice. You seem to think it is the former and not the latter.
You're thinking about the wrong side of the market. The device purchaser gets to decide if they want an iPhone or a Droid. The app developer doesn't get to decide which of their customers buy which device -- and if a majority of their customers buy an iPhone and then Apple rejects the app because it competes with Apple's own offerings, that will have an extremely anti-competitive effect in the app market.
Apple wanted to get rid of the DRM the record companies wanted, not the DRM that Apple wants. You still can't run programs not approved by Apple on your iPod/iOS device without jailbreaking. They each want different forms of DRM because they each sell different products. That doesn't mean either of them actually expects it to stop "piracy" or is interested in it primarily for that reason.
Way to switch topics in mid stream. We were talking about music. Even you agree that it was the record companies that wanted it.
Premise: DRM is useful and necessary for distributing content. Premise: The only DRM supported by iPods is Apple DRM. Premise: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can distribute music with Apple DRM. Conclusion: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can sell music for iPods, because DRM is required and Apple has the only DRM supported by iPods.
What is the market that we were talking about? The market is music. Again, can you get music without Apple? Yes. If we limit the market to just online music, can you get online music without Apple? Yes. So how does Apple control the online music market again? So what you did was define the market to be so narrow that Apple is guaranteed to have control. Basically you've defined the market as Apple DRM'ed online music. Which coincidentally Apple controls. That's like saying Honda controls the car market for sedans named Civics. Look at their sales figures! They own 100% of the market. Honda must be stopped from selling Civics is the gist of your argument.
One of the tests of monopoly is high enough market share to control the market. However, the market must be defined as not to be too exclusive or too inclusive. But that's only one test. Another test is the lack of suitable alternatives. Another test is whether a significant barrier to entry exists. If you define the market to be online music then Apple does not have a monopoly.
Why do you think that what Apple intended has anything to do with anything? If Microsoft intended that no browsers competing with Internet Explorer should run on Windows, and implemented technical measures to prevent it, you would not see that as an anti-competitive act to protect lock-in? And you would accept that competing browsers trying to work around it are doing something wrong? How is Apple's behavior different?
iPods play MP3, AAC, Apple Loseless and Fairplay. The first 2 are neither owned nor controlled by Apple. FairPlay is their format which they did not license to Real. What Real did is design their Helix DRM so that it fools the iPod in thinking that it is a FairPlay file. If Apple changed their iPods not to play any DRM free music, you might have a point. Your analogy would be closer if Netscape, Firefox, Opera and Chrome all pretended they were IE when making API calls to Windows. The only other software that does the same kind of deception is malware.
Nobody can install Solaris on an "AIX machine" because they run on completely different processor architectures, no Solaris drivers exist for IBM hardware, etc. But let's say that I, as a business, go to IBM and order up an x86-based xSeries server and then I buy myself a copy of x86 Solaris to run on it. You think they're going to send lawyers? IBM will be happy for the hardware sale and Oracle will send a promotional brochure for "Oracle Solaris Premier Subscriptions for Non-Oracle x86 Systems [oracle.com]".
So no hacker would/could write a driver for AIX? No one is talented enough to do that? The problem isn't a matter of technical possibility. You as a user can install Solaris onto a AIX machine legally. What you can't do is start a business that does it. Both Oracle and IBM would sue you to oblivion if you did. This is no different. Hackers want to install Real Player onto their iPods. Even if Apple says it's illegal, it's not. A company wants to do it as a busi
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place.
Except that "why" you brought up isn't a "why" for the topic at hand.
Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it.
Of course not, but they can control the sources of content for it. Why aren't you bitching about Wiis and Xboxes and Kindles? Do you think they are illegal as well?
If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.
Yes, convicted criminals do often have their rights taken away.
Agreed. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad can install apps on them to purchase media. The only thing is that Apple controls the app store.
When Microsoft faced the DOJ it had the bundled software of IE and Media Player. I believe that the same argument was made, but I could be wrong.
Apple is a top contender for the tablet computers. Apple should know that price, legacy software, quality, marketing, promotion and other factors like word of mouth helps sell products.
Before Microsoft became big each PC had a different operating system based on CP/M, and other systems. IBM saw the threat of Apple. IBM decided to cater to small businesses with the IBM PC to beat Apple, but Microsoft licensed DOS to other companies and alternative BIOS to IBM BIOS to run MS-DOS and later Windows to counter Apple's Macintosh.
If Apple lawyers are smart they will reference the MS DOJ case. Basically (BASIC ally *grin*) standards sell better when OEM companies licence them.
So the tablet standard that has the most OEMs bundle it via a license will create the next standard. Apple hasn't done that since the Mac clones. I doubt they will, but hope they might. Apple iOS is a great OS so far, however, Droid, Blackberry, Linux, Windows Smart phones are innovating to compete. But I could be wrong.
I apologize to all. Long ago we had BASIC for 8 BIT computers and each system had to modify it. BASIC was not an OS but a system language shared by many computers, designed to be easy to use (a programming language for the rest of us *grin*) and portable (if you don't mind the peeks and poke changing to convert from one system to another (3D0G *grin* 8EON for Epson printers) and hope it works.
Apple had a BASIC standard different from IBM, Commodore, Atari and others. Apple was used because it was hackable (back then hacking was a good thing to use double high rez and other tricks of the trade), affordable, and expandable.
Now we have Java, Python, Shockwave Flash and others. Is that enough? Not quite. If Apple wants to get back to it's roots then it needs to give the customers what they want and need. Have an ability for customers to unlock their iPhone for a small fee to change mobile companies. That would help drop these charges against Apple.
The iPod, iPhone are small tablet computers, the iPad is a larger tablet computer.
allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's
This is stupid. No one's allowing you to do anything, and God knows if there was a way to stop you from doing that, they'd do it.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Yes, them too. But right now we're talking about Apple.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Exactly.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)