iTunes Store Turns 10

An anonymous reader writes "On April 28, 2003, Apple launched the iTunes Music Store. In their original press release, they called it 'revolutionary,' in typical PR fashion. As the service reaches its 10th anniversary, it seems they were actually correct. From The Verge: 'At launch, it was Mac-only and offered a relatively tiny catalog: 200,000 songs (it currently has 26 million). But it did have the support of the major record labels of the day: Universal, EMI, Warner, Sony, and BMG. The partnerships were key to helping Apple take control of music distribution — without the songs, the iPod was a nicely designed but empty box. ... Jobs certainly had his challenges. Vidich said he's the one who suggested that iTunes charge 99 cents per track and he remembers Jobs nearly hugged him. At the time, Sony Music execs wanted to charge more than $3 a track, according to Vidich. No doubt a $3 song price would have tied an anchor around iTunes' neck, stifling growth. 99 cents, on the other hand, was below the sub-$1 psychological barrier — and has continued to be an important price point for not only music but the wide swath of 99-cent iOS apps in the store. ... Apple bet that the majority of consumers wouldn't have an issue with its lock-in tactics, and it bet correctly.'"

Comments

Lock in Tactics?

[angel'o'sphere]

What exactly is the lock in if I buy a song on iTunes or an eBook?

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[malchus842]

Originally, iTunes had DRM on music so it could only be played while iTunes was connected to your account (not always on). They removed the DRM later for music. It's still there for movies.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally, iTunes had DRM on music so it could only be played while iTunes was connected to your account (not always on). They removed the DRM later for music. It's still there for movies.

The article is incorrect to say this addition is Apple's - applying DRM was a prerequisite of the music industry for the licensing agreement with Apple. No DRM, no license. The removal of DRM has only happened because the music industry finally saw the writing on the wall and allowed Apple (and others) to remove it.

The movie industry isn't so enlightened yet. I avoid buying films through iTunes or alternatives, because it is far too easy to fall into a situation where you can't watch the media you legally purchased. We moved house recently and our ISP was late reconnecting us - for that period of time (over a month) we couldn't watch any films we previously purchased online because they required an Internet connection for authorisation. I'm longing for the day the movie industry wakes up to its poor treatment of customers and removes these DRM constraints.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[angel'o'sphere]

That is incorrect. You could play titles without being online. And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[deergomoo]

I don't know why you've been downmodded despite the fact that you are telling the absolute truth. Maybe it's because your opinion isn't 'hurr durr Apple is satan', which doesn't fly with /.ers. Regardless, you are correct, Apple gains little from DRM and never wanted it. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason why they never made any effort to hide the fact that if you really wanted DRM free tracks, you could burn it to a CD (or virtual CD), then rip it again. Yeah it's a PITA, but them's (were) the rules if you want(ed) to play ball with the music industry.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[ganjadude]

While you are correct, The real issue is not for people reading /.

for example, how many of our mothers and fathers would know that? how many of them even know what DRM is? It will not be until they buy new devices they realize that they can no longer access their music / movie collection.*

* - i know itunes music is no longer DRM bloated, however the movies are and not everyone stripped the DRM, or even knows how to from their songs bought 10 years ago

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[oldlurker]

Originally, iTunes had DRM on music so it could only be played while iTunes was connected to your account (not always on). They removed the DRM later for music. It's still there for movies.

The article is incorrect to say this addition is Apple's - applying DRM was a prerequisite of the music industry for the licensing agreement with Apple. No DRM, no license. The removal of DRM has only happened because the music industry finally saw the writing on the wall and allowed Apple (and others) to remove it.

Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc - iTunes caught up on some of these eventually but was not in the lead for less DRM). And it was Amazon who was first with a full DRM-free music catalogue, and at the same price (at the time iTunes had started selling some DRM free tracks at a higher price than non-DRM).

This might be that the record companies were stricter with Apple than everybody else (which would be the opposite of the story that Apple used their power to force the record companies). But at the time Apple had a clear advantage from the lock-in that DRM gave the iPod/iTunes ecosystem in the beginning, so not sure how much they really disliked this situation for a while at least.

(*) Plays for sure became a joke when Microsoft abandoned it, but at the time I used it because my Sansa player supported it.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[malchus842]

Note that I said "Not always on." In other words, the account needed to be connected to your iTunes and authenticated. But it didn't have to be always on. In other words, what I wrote was correct.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Karlt1]

for example, how many of our mothers and fathers would know that? how many of them even know what DRM is? It will not be until they buy new devices they

Creating a CD from an iTunes playlist is very apparent. Once you create a playlist the "burn cd" button is on the same window.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[ganjadude]

and how many machines these days ship without CDROMS? My last 3 laptops were all dvd free

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Karlt1]

When iTunes music had DRM, most computers had CD-RW's.

For the past 5 years, all iTunes music has been sold as unencrypted AAC files that can be played on any phone.

Before anyone else posts, AAC is not an Apple format, was standardised years before the iPod was introduced, and is one of the required supported formats for Android.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[ganjadude]

I understand that

the point was the music our parents bought through Itunes in the beginning.. but are still listening to them. I understand just as well as you how trivial it is. but for a non technical person, its still jumping through hoops.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[UnknowingFool]

When it came to DRM free tracks, it appears the sticking point was variable pricing. It looks like Apple relented and the studios raised the prices to 1.29 for each DRM free track. Also the studios realized they actually gave Apple leverage when they insisted on DRM as millions of tracks required Apple devices and couldn't be moved off.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc

"Plays for sure" - see, that's where the problem with your argument starts. PlaysForSure was introduced late in 2004 - IOW over a year after the iTunes DRM.

But that's just a technicality, so let's look at the actual competition. http://www.salon.com/2003/04/29/itunes/

I have seen the future of music and its name is iTunes

[...] Many online music services are on the market, but they’ve all done poorly, most likely because, as Jobs said, they all “treat you like a criminal.” For the most part, the other services are subscription based — users pay a $10 or $20 per-month fee for access to a catalog of songs, and they must put up with a Byzantine set of rules outlining how they can use the tracks. Some services only offer “streaming” music, meaning that you have to be connected to the Internet when you want to listen to your songs; others let you download songs so long as you play them on a single machine (forget about transferring them to portable MP3 players); a few services let you burn songs to CDs, but only for selected tracks for an extra per-song fee. The worst part is, you have to keep paying to get the music; once you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to many of the tracks you’ve downloaded.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342289/

Universal and Sony rolled out a joint venture called Pressplay. AOL Time Warner (the parent of both Warner and FORTUNE's publisher), Bertelsmann (BMG's owner), EMI, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet. But instead of trying to cooperate to attract customers, the two ventures competed to dominate the digital market. Pressplay wouldn't license its songs to MusicNet, and MusicNet withheld its tunes from Pressplay.

[...]The record companies were also fearful about doing anything that might cannibalize CD sales. So they decided to "rent" people music through the Internet. You paid a monthly subscription fee for songs from MusicNet and Pressplay. But you could download MusicNet tunes onto only one computer, and they disappeared if you didn't pay your bill. That may have protected the record companies from piracy, but it didn't do much for consumers. Why fork over $10 a month for a subscription when you can't do anything with your music but listen to it on your PC? Pressplay launched with CD burning but only for a limited number of songs.

At the end of last year, Pressplay and MusicNet licensed their catalogues to each other, ending their standoff. MusicNet also now permits subscribers to burn certain songs onto CDs. But MusicNet users still can't download songs onto portable players. "These devices haven't caught on yet," insists MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade. Never mind that U.S. sales of portable MP3 players soared from 724,000 in 2001 to 1.6 million last year. Pressplay, for its part, lets subscribers download some songs onto devices, but only those that use Microsoft's Windows Media software. That means no iPods.

But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[node 3]

But it's relatively unimportant. It's an edge-case (people with old iTunes songs but no access to an optical drive), and every day millions of songs are sold further receding the percentage of music that is affected by this.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[SeaFox]

And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.

No, you have that backwards. You could burn them to CD directly from iTunes, and then rerip them to MP3.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well. perhaps you ment the correct thing but in my eyes your choice of words is very missleading (for me at least).

"Account connected to iTunes" is for me a synonym for being online. But understand now what you mean. Would not know myself how to express the situation properly in english :)

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry expressed it unfortunate, yes should not have said export, it was a direct burn to CD (which technically is an export, too) my fault :)

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Wovel]

Amazon Started selling their DRM free music within in a week or so of Apple. They both started with the EMI catalog. I imagine it was really the combined pressure of two of the largest music retailers pushing on one distributor.

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Plumpaquatsch]

But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.

You mean like eMusic?
They never had DRM.

Actually, eMusic have been around since 1998, so they would have already celebrated their 15th anniversary.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/23396

When Unlimited....Isn't

Emusic customers hit glass ceiling, get booted

by Karl Bode Friday 08-Nov-2002

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[oldlurker]

Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc

"Plays for sure" - see, that's where the problem with your argument starts. PlaysForSure was introduced late in 2004 - IOW over a year after the iTunes DRM.

But that's just a technicality, so let's look at the actual competition. http://www.salon.com/2003/04/29/itunes/

I have seen the future of music and its name is iTunes

[...] Many online music services are on the market, but they’ve all done poorly, most likely because, as Jobs said, they all “treat you like a criminal.” For the most part, the other services are subscription based — users pay a $10 or $20 per-month fee for access to a catalog of songs, and they must put up with a Byzantine set of rules outlining how they can use the tracks. Some services only offer “streaming” music, meaning that you have to be connected to the Internet when you want to listen to your songs; others let you download songs so long as you play them on a single machine (forget about transferring them to portable MP3 players); a few services let you burn songs to CDs, but only for selected tracks for an extra per-song fee. The worst part is, you have to keep paying to get the music; once you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to many of the tracks you’ve downloaded.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342289/

Universal and Sony rolled out a joint venture called Pressplay. AOL Time Warner (the parent of both Warner and FORTUNE's publisher), Bertelsmann (BMG's owner), EMI, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet. But instead of trying to cooperate to attract customers, the two ventures competed to dominate the digital market. Pressplay wouldn't license its songs to MusicNet, and MusicNet withheld its tunes from Pressplay.

[...]The record companies were also fearful about doing anything that might cannibalize CD sales. So they decided to "rent" people music through the Internet. You paid a monthly subscription fee for songs from MusicNet and Pressplay. But you could download MusicNet tunes onto only one computer, and they disappeared if you didn't pay your bill. That may have protected the record companies from piracy, but it didn't do much for consumers. Why fork over $10 a month for a subscription when you can't do anything with your music but listen to it on your PC? Pressplay launched with CD burning but only for a limited number of songs.

At the end of last year, Pressplay and MusicNet licensed their catalogues to each other, ending their standoff. MusicNet also now permits subscribers to burn certain songs onto CDs. But MusicNet users still can't download songs onto portable players. "These devices haven't caught on yet," insists MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade. Never mind that U.S. sales of portable MP3 players soared from 724,000 in 2001 to 1.6 million last year. Pressplay, for its part, lets subscribers download some songs onto devices, but only those that use Microsoft's Windows Media software. That means no iPods.

But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.

My point wasn't really who launched the store first, sorry if that was unclear, but that when the WMA stores launched they had less DRM restrictions than iTunes had at the same time. I used both iTunes and MSN Music myself at the same time (yes, really). Especially the option to freely re-download songs if you lost the li

Re: Lock in Tactics?

[Em Adespoton]

And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.

No, you have that backwards. You could burn them to CD directly from iTunes, and then rerip them to MP3.

Both were true... most people burned them to audio CD on a CD-RW, but the little secret was that you could also create an MP3 CD of the DRM'd tunes, and then just copy the un-DRM'd files back off. I seem to recall that this wasn't true for all versions of iTunes though; at one point, it burned the DRM'd versions to CD, and at another (shortly after) it refused to burn the DRM'd ones. Can't recall if the "convert and burn" happened before or after that.

Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million

[olsmeister]

No. As a non-mathematician, but someone who is pretty good at simple arithmetic, you could invest that $26,000,000 and if you could get a 5% return, that's $1.3M per year, or $25k per week.
For that, I could have a string quartet at my house every night, a pretty decent rock band live every weekend, or if I was busy for a week or two I could buy a new car instead.
And still leave $26M to my kids.

Question

[olip85]

I thought software was supposed to improve with time?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought software was supposed to improve with time?

"Improve with time" means "make more profit for the corporation". It has done that.

What, you didn't think "improvement" meant "give you a better user experience", did you?

Re:Question

[arkane1234]

You were wrong.

Thank god the iPod is dead

[tuppe666]

itunes is very much part of the iPod success story. It was a horrible bit of software that should be burned with fire. For those of us who used platforms that it didn't work on, it made owning an iPod/iPhone a nightmare, and used to prop up Apples monopoly in the Mp3 players (thank god they Jobs was stopped with books). It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari. It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways. Its still used to update devices!? Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware.

Its one redeeming feature is it popularised 3-plane music players. Personally though I'm using Clementine which is everything right about a music player.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[Neil_Brown]

For those of us who used platforms that it didn't work on, it made owning an iPod/iPhone a nightmare

I used my old iPod with Amarok under Ubuntu for quite some time — I actually found it easier to use that iTunes on Windows, which, for me, crashed more often than it worked.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[Clsid]

For all the tales of horror with iTunes, I guess I'm the only happy user.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[DoofusOfDeath]

Even Google Play isn't perfect. It doesn't seem willing or able (I'm not sure which) to play licensed videos on my Linux laptop.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[BasilBrush]

Its still used to update devices!?

It CAN still be used to update devices. That functionality is still there. Though of course iOS devices have been able to update themselves over the air for a long time now.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[Rick Zeman]

For all the tales of horror with iTunes, I guess I'm the only happy user.

And me. I've been using it on a Mac since it was SoundJam so I've seen it all. It's gotten a bit convoluted when you add in supporting other iDevices ("How the eft do I add music to a playlist that gets synched with only the iPhone and not the iPad again?"). By and large, I suspect that most--if not all--of the bitching is coming from Windows users having to deal with Apple trying to carry across functionality that's been in MacOS forever to a non-native platform.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[Anubis IV]

Speaking as an Apple fan, I agree entirely that it needs to die in a fire already.

That said, this story is about the iTunes Store, which just turned 10 and is actually pretty decent, not the iTunes software, which is over 12 years old at this point. iOS devices haven't required the iTunes software to do updates or sync for a few years now, and they've been capable of making purchases from the iTunes Store without having to use the software since the very beginning.

But when it comes to complaining about the iTunes software, I'm right there with you complaining about it. On Windows it's buggy, bloated, unfriendly towards users, and has a history of bad behavior (e.g. the auto-installing Safari thing). On Mac, it's inconsistent with other UI paradigms, poorly structured, and breaks from the usual UNIX and Mac way of making separate tools for each task.

In contrast, the iTunes Store, while not the easiest thing to navigate, does have a number of extremely nice features going for it, beyond just helping to pave the way for later entrants in the field. Besides which, it remains the largest digital music platform, and with digital music sales finally passing physical sales as of 2012, it makes sense to look back on the history first big digital music store that is currently the biggest music store period.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[gnasher719]

It's gotten a bit convoluted when you add in supporting other iDevices ("How the eft do I add music to a playlist that gets synched with only the iPhone and not the iPad again?").

That's not really difficult. You make an "iPhone playlist" and an "iPad playlist", maybe a "Jim's iPhone playlist" and a "Jill's iPhone playlist", and set each device to sync with that playlist.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[maccodemonkey]

It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.

Are you referring to the brief period in which Apple Software Update had Safari pre-checked as an update option? As I remember, that didn't last very long, and it didn't change the default browser. While the default checked bit was annoying, it didn't trample any user settings and didn't force anyone to use anything.

It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.

How so? It installs a driver an an app, both of which are easily removable.

Its still used to update devices!?

No?

Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware

I can buy tracks straight from my iOS device too without iTunes.

It doesn't sound like you've ever really spent much time with the Apple ecosystem, and are just armchairing it.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[SvnLyrBrto]

No. It's just that there's a very loud anti-everything-Apple crowd on slashdot. And since iTunes is an Apple product, it's obviously the worst possible piece of software one could imagine for what it does.

Now, I'd agree that it's by no means the best piece of software has written, and there are large areas where it could be improved. I especially dislike the swiss-army-chainsaw approach they went with. I think it's be far better, for example, if Apple broke the media server aspects into a service controlled through System Preferences, broke out the store part and rolled it into the separate App Store software, resurrected iSync to handle iDevice syncing and management, and restored iTuned itself to its roots as a media player and playlist manager.

That said though, as bloated as its become with functionality that seems better placed elsewhere, iTunes is nowhere near as bad as all the hate directed at it would seem to indicate. I think it really is just more of the same mindless Apple-bashing that has been the norm for decades.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[flimflammer]

You are a Mac user right? iTunes isn't that terrible on a Mac. It's terrible on other operating systems because Apple just didn't give two shits about those platforms.

It has nothing to do with typical Apple hate and everything to do with Apple doing a very unsatisfactory job porting to other operating systems. Same deal with QuickTime on other operating systems such that we needed something like QuickTime Alternative to show up if you wanted an even remotely decent experience playing quicktime movies. The experience is likely even intentionally bad everywhere but Macs, cause then they get to say that it's just typical Windows jankiness and not just poorly porting.

Re: Thank god the iPod is dead

[UnknowingFool]

You mean like the minidisc? Or how Jobs himself said he would get rid of DRM the moment the music companies agreed. And he did. At the time there were only a handful of legal online stores. All of them including iTunes required DRM. PlaysForSure required DRM. Every phone carrier's music store (like Verizon) required DRM. The music companies didn't think that the iPod would become the defacto music player for the masses.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[node 3]

itunes is very much part of the iPod success story.

True.

It was a horrible bit of software that should be burned with fire.

I disagree. It's fantastic on Macs, though sometimes quite crap on PCs (and strangely so, on one PC it would run slow as molasses, on another (less powerful even!) PC it runs just fine).

For those of us who used platforms that it didn't work on, it made owning an iPod/iPhone a nightmare,

True.

and used to prop up Apples monopoly in the Mp3 players

False. Apple never had a monopoly on MP3 players.

(thank god they Jobs was stopped with books).

Strange. Not only did Apple not have a monopoly on MP3 players, on music, or anything else, their foray into eBooks was already dominated by Amazon. And stranger still, Apple wasn't "stopped" with books, they actually sell them.

It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.

Sorry, but that's just stupid.

It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.

Again, stupid.

Its still used to update devices!?

But not required for iOS devices. It's still used for non-iOS devices (naturally, since they have no direct internet connectivity).

Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware.

Play is nice, though I much prefer a library-type program like iTunes, it's good to have options. Play even (very loosely speaking) integrates with iTunes or any other jukebox, so again, there are options.

Its one redeeming feature is it popularised 3-plane music players. Personally though I'm using Clementine which is everything right about a music player.

I would assume the two main features you think are "right" about it are that it runs on Linux and doesn't have anything to do with Apple.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[vux984]

I do believe Neil_Brown was talking about iTunes crashing on Windows.

So was I. I don't really disagree with the flamebait mod I ate for it either though - it was somewhat deserved. :)

But still, 2004 would have been itunes version 4 on XP, and there is really no real excuse for that to be constantly crashing unless there were driver problems or the itunes database was corrupt, or (some of) the music files themselves were malformed in some way.

I would expect anyone who could set up a linux solution for themselves would be able to resolve why itunes was crashing on windows and fix it.

So when I read about people talking about how they switched to linux because x on windows crashed all the time... that's like having a car with a stalling problem and "solving it" by buying a kit car and building it. Sure that's great, but If you can do that, you could have fixed the issue with the original car if they had tried.

This isn't in the 90s anymore. Windows has been relatively stable for quite a while now.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[mattack2]

What do iTunes and FireFox have to do with each other?

iTunes is a separate app, FireFox is a brower.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[Em Adespoton]

So when I read about people talking about how they switched to linux because x on windows crashed all the time... that's like having a car with a stalling problem and "solving it" by buying a kit car and building it. Sure that's great, but If you can do that, you could have fixed the issue with the original car if they had tried.

This isn't in the 90s anymore. Windows has been relatively stable for quite a while now.

A kit car is designed for the builder to be able to swap out parts and tune things... looking under the hood of my current car, there is some stuff that I wouldn't touch with a ten-meter pole if it went wrong; I'd take it back to the dealer to get fixed, or if it went wrong often enough, I'd return the car and get something that didn't do that... even if it turned out I had to resort to a kit car to get that.

So really, your car analogy is very apt. Some issues in proprietary systems are too much of a headache to fix, as the manufacturer wants it to remain black-box.

Re:Thank god the iPod is dead

[Em Adespoton]

Its still used to update devices!?

It CAN still be used to update devices. That functionality is still there. Though of course iOS devices have been able to update themselves over the air for a long time now.

I still update via iTunes, because I have more control over the update process this way. Since iTunes is a Cocoa product these days, I can tweak it to my heart's content, profile what it's doing, etc* and in general get it to do exactly what I want. Tethered updates mean if something goes wrong or I want to do a non-standard firmware, I have some way to recover.

* Yes, there's rudimentary anti-debugging in iTunes and DVD Player, but anyone who can actually use a debugger can easily figure out how to make one work. Nib files are wonderful things :)

Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! I don't understand why more people don't invest their $26 million in order to live off the interest?

Why don't more people have their butlers find for them a good financial advisor?

Mitt.

Re:BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this service has been around 10 years, aye? I've never had to use it. Seems like such an important service.

QFT. Why is Slashdot covering services not used by Eggplant62?

Re:"99 cents ... was below the sub-$1"

[MysteriousPreacher]

Wouldn't sub $1 include all prices below $1, in which by definitionno price by definition be below sub $1?

Re:"99 cents ... was below the sub-$1"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that for individual item payment purposes (e.g. iTunes songs), cents are discreet, hence the first price actually payable that is sub $1 is 99 cents (or 95 cents in places like Canada if paying in cash). Hence a "below the sub $1" does indeed imply 98 cents. It's somewhat pedantic, but this is slashdot, and ambiguity in specification/sloppy writing will burn you in software and technology.

Re:BFD

[Anubis IV]

And I've never installed Linux on a home machine (though I have been looking into it, to be fair). Clearly it's unimportant too? Or are we only excluding things that you've not used?

The iTunes Store is currently the largest digital music distribution service available in terms of downloads, and as of last year, digital sales numbers passed those of physical media. That you're not using a service does not mean it's not noteworthy. Considering it was the first big service of this sort and set the stage for all of the ones that followed, looking back on the last 10 years of it seems to make sense.

Safari a failure.

[tuppe666]

This is complete bullshit by any reasonable understanding of what it is to force someone to do something. Safari came as a default extra via the installer and the auto update mechanism. That approach is a turnoff for me. Even so users could still use Firefox. How were they forced to use Safari?

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/18/is-apple-aiming-at-firefox/ This is a sad looking Jobs in 2007 and the famous graph that does not include firefox anymore. How wrong he was.

Re:Safari a failure.

[BasilBrush]

If you count Safari on iOS he's about right for market share.
If you count all the WebKit browsers, he vastly underestimated.

Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million

[vux984]

What's even neater is that you'd be dead of old age before you could listen to all of it. (Feel free to run the numbers, I did. I assumed a 3 minute track, life expectancy of 100, that you started listening at birth, and that you don't need to sleep.) You still can't get through it all.)

Actually I'm not sure if that's neat or not... more sad really.

Re:WILL BE SAID, YOU CANNOT BE ZERO CENTS !!

[Deltaspectre]

Off by one error as shown by the incorrect spelling of "it's"

AC really meant "It's Higgs' Boson, mate."

You missed the point

[mauriceh]

The important part of all of this is that iTunes is the means by which the industry transformed our purchasing method form possession to renting music.

When you die the rights to that music dies with you.

Re:You missed the point

[SternisheFan]

The important part of all of this is that iTunes is the means by which the industry transformed our purchasing method form possession to renting music.

When you die the rights to that music dies with you.

Hint: Your local library probably has tons of CDs available to lend. CD's that can be ripped into drm-free mp3 tracks, and rename them as you like ( 'Artist name' - 'Song title' ). Just make sure you have multiple backups created (flashdrives, sd cards work well).

Re:You missed the point

[mauriceh]

I live in Canada, where this is probably legal.
We have a federal law regarding copying music for personal use.

In other locations, notably the USA, not so much..

Re:You missed the point

[gnasher719]

When you die the rights to that music dies with you.

Legally, I suppose it is part of my estate and goes to whoever inherits that estate. It certainly won't stop playing. Sadly though I must say that when I die, those who inherit it might lack the taste to appreciate it.

Re:You missed the point

[berj]

When you die the rights to that music dies with you.

It does? Where does it say that? I've looked over the TOS and I can't find that anywhere. What have I missed?

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html

Re:You missed the point

[SternisheFan]

I don't think iTunes music or an account is transferable. You 'rent' it for life (the life of you or of iTunes), then if it isn't backed up offline in a drm-free format, it's lost. There was recently a case of some celeb who wanted to bequeath his large iTunes collection to his heirs, he learned that he couldn't do it.

My advice for people is to burn your music collection to disc, copying it from the discs rids the tracks of any drm (I've heard this works). Then do offline backups of the tracks.

Re:You missed the point

[SternisheFan]

Apple’s iTunes terms, for example, stipulate:

You can’t sell or give someone else your purchase; the license is for the “end user use only.”

You can play music, video and e-book content on up to five different computers – except for film rentals.

You can burn music playlists onto a disc seven times.

You can’t make copies for anything other than your own personal backup.

In practical – but legally grey — terms, people who want to pass on or sell digital media files could simply hand over a computer or iPod filled with the digital media. And, as with other digital accounts, there’s nothing stopping someone from handing over account details and passwords before they pass away, allowing a survivor to continue accessing their libraries.

While not designed to bequeath a library after death, the website Redigi.com has tried to set up an online marketplace for people to re-sell some of their existing digital media files purchased through iTunes. But Redigi is in an ongoing legal fight in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York with Capitol Records, which has claimed the “first sale doctrine” doesn’t apply to its digital music files.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/01/04/why-you-cant-bequeath-your-digital-library/

Re:You missed the point

[MysteriousPreacher]

And this is something that needs to be resolved for all digital purchases. I would be very happy to see legal protections in place to allow the re-sale and transfer of such content. Media companies fight this tooth and nail.

Re:You missed the point

[mauriceh]

This explains it quite well:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57505272-37/who-owns-your-downloaded-music-after-you-die/

Re: You missed the point

[UnknowingFool]

Considering that all music on iTunes has been DRM free for 5 years, I'd say you haven't been paying attention.

Re: You missed the point

[mauriceh]

DRM free? Yes.
Watermarked? Also yes.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/0707133391.shtml
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/itunes-plus-everything-you-need-to-know-49300555/

Re:You missed the point

[gsslay]

If I'm dead, why do I care?

Those who inherit from you won't ever listen to most of your music. There might be a areas where your tastes coincide, and there might be a few tracks that they particularly remember you by. But if they cared enough about they music they'd already have a copy (legally or otherwise). If they cared enough about remembering you they'd go purchase a copy.

And failing that, who's going to stop you taking a copy off your Mom's iPod after the funeral? We don't (yet) have trojans that wipe devices when the user dies.

Re:You missed the point

[mauriceh]

All of which entirely misses the point that has been made.
If I want to ignore the contract I agreed to with Apple/Amazon/Google, etc.,
  I could do so and find free sources of music, and remove DRM or other signatures.

However the point and discussion at hand is about the transition from buying a copy of music to being loaned a copy, at a fee.

Re:BFD

[SuneSpeg]

I sure miss the part of history before the 10 years, more han i miss using itunes. There are (stille) wiki pages describing how apple computer tricked/sued/bought the Apple Corps right to the Apple name/brand.

Who is Vidich?

[Vrtigo1]

It would help to know who this Vidich is without having to click through to the article. Editing fail.

Re:BFD

[EricTheGreen]

Solipsistic, much, are you?

Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only sad if you think that someone would actually force you to listen to every song of the collection.

Re:"99 cents ... was below the sub-$1"

[GrumpySteen]

Your life must feel really worthwhile now that you've added so much to the conversation.

Re:BFD

[GrumpySteen]

I've never had to inject myself with an epi-pen, so it's an unimportant medication, right?

Dumbass.

Re:See less and Less itunes

[gnasher719]

80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store.

You seem to be just slightly confused. I can buy music wherever I like (well, that's Amazon, iTunes, anyone selling CDs, and some smaller players), and it works everywhere I care. Maybe Android phones are too stupid to use these sources, I wouldn't know. In that case, do Android users have to throw their libraries away and start paying for all their music again?

The real story

[theurge14]

The real revolution was that Apple became a big enough player with the iPod to force the hand of the big 5 of the RIAA to actually offer their music online in digital form for what many people deemed a fair enough price to not pirate. It seems commonplace now in 2013 enough to forget, but in the mid 2000s there were very options for consumers to get their music online, and one could argue this was one of the bigger reasons for online piracy. We see echoes of this still today as the news reported last week that the HBO show Game of Thrones is one of the biggest pirated shows online, and some would argue this is because of consumer's perceived lack of options for watching it online. Apple challenged the old distribution model and won, that's what the story is.

Re:The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The real revolution was that Apple became a big enough player with the iPod to force the hand of the big 5

I agree that Apple's battle with the RIAA is the real story, but that's not a revolution, it is just trading one monopoly for another.

Re:The real story

[Uberbah]

it is just trading one monopoly for another.

ORLY? When did Apple get a monopoly on music distribution - did the buy out Sony and BMG when no one was looking? How long have you been unable to buy the same music at similar prices at similar stores? When did Apple revert back to protected-AAC formats, preventing you from playing iTMS-purchased tracks on non-Apple devices?

Or maybe you're using that word, "monopoly", and it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means. Consider switching to decaf hatorade....

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Please define monopoly. If I want to get the newest song from latest popular boy band, I don't have to use iTunes. I can get a CD or buy from Amazon or Google. It will work with my iPod. Since all the tracks are DRM free from iTunes, it will work with an Android phone.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Please define monopoly

Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.

Re:The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

ORLY? When did Apple get a monopoly on music distribution - did the buy out Sony and BMG when no one was looking?

Itunes accounts for nearly 70% of the digital download market. They are at least 3x larger than their nearest competitor. That's a monopoly in the same the RIAA has a monopoly on physical music distribution. Sure you can buy a CD from an unsigned band, just don't expect to do it in any of the stores that carry CDs from signed bands.

Or maybe you're using that word, "monopoly", and it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means

You seem to be implying that you are one of those literalists who think that the mono in monopoly means "only one" rather than market control by the largest entity. By that definition, the RIAA isn't a monopoly either in which case my comparison of trading the RIAA's monopoly for Apple's monopoly should have twigged you the fact that your definition is insufficient. Great for nerdrage but still not applicable to the discussion.

Re: The real story

[MrMickS]

Please define monopoly

Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.

I don't think that you understand what a monopoly is. Apple would have a monopoly if the music sold on iTunes wasn't available elsewhere. They don't so there isn't a monopoly. Whether Apple have a commercial advantage due to the ease of use is a different issue, and more like the one that you're referring to, but it isn't a monopoly.

This is nothing like the RIAA and artists. If an artist signs for a record company they sign away rights to the record company in return for money and services from the record company.

Re: The real story

[tlhIngan]

Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.

Hint. It is not illegal to own a monopoly

It is illegal to use one monopoly to leverage an advantage in another market though, and in the mid 2000's, Apple was in serious danger of doing just that - between iTunes (music sales) and iPod (MP3 players). Despite being able to load DRM-free music (obtained via download or CD, or that you could defeat the DRM using the supported "Burn and Rip" method). Of course, it all came to pass when Amazon decided to up the game and release DRM-free MP3s that worked on iPod.

Anyhow, just because iTunes accounts for 70% of sales - there's nothing that says no competitor can come in and upset the cart. Hell, online radio services like spotify, Pandora, etc., have done just that. As has Amazon. And many other places - hell, I bought an album the other day and it came DRM free. I could've gotten it through iTunes, but I didn't (I went to the musician's web page for that). I wanted it in FLAC and I knew it was an option if I went direct.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

All of which you describe is controlled by the RIAA not Apple. Also please cite a defintion of monopoly where overwhelming market position is the only criteria of "monopoly". The term that you seem to miss is a dominant market position to control the market. Apple had to cave into variable pricing to get DRM free tracks. Two other factors that also are not in your definition are "high barrier to entry" and "no suitable alternatives exist." The fact that you can get alternatives today trumps your monopoly argument completely.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Ma Bell and Standard Oil and MS were monopolies because you couldn't get any other competing product. The fact that you can get music onto your iPod without buying from Apple defeats your logic.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ma Bell and Standard Oil and MS were monopolies because you couldn't get any other competing product.

Come on, how can you be so ignorant of history? 100% monopolies are so rare that they basically don't exist.

Ma Bell -> MCI (and others)
MS -> Apple
Standard Oil -> 70% of the market when the antitrust suit was filed against them

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Hint. It is not illegal to own a monopoly

Hint. I never said it was. Doesn't have to be illegal to be bad for the consumer.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Seriously, you are comparing MS which virtually controled the OEM PC market with Apple's largest marketshare of online music. Let's list the ways your history is lacking. When MS went to trial a consumer could not get a PC from an OEM without Windows. You want music today, right now? You don't need to even bother with an Apple product if you don't want. Get an Android, use Amazon. Would you care to dispute this as a fact or not?

As for Standard Oil control of a market though vertical integration was their issue. With Apple, it's easier to use their whole ecosystem. But you don't have to use all the parts. Want to download music from iTunes to your Android? As long as it can play AAC, you can. Want to get Amazon music to play on your iPod. As long as the format is MP3 or AAC, you can. Please tell me which of these facts are incorrect. Each of these facts basically demolish your monopoly theory.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

The caved into the owners of the copyright without whose permission they cannot sell their music. As a consumer if you want to avoid Apple to get your music, nothing is stopping you. How can you possibly say that is a monopoly? That defies the idea of monopoly.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The thing is that monopoly is not one precise thing it is shades of gray - if it were one succinct definition you wouldn't be moving those goalposts to rationalize how all the other monopolies I've cited fit different requirements. The only difference is you are picking and choosing your requirements to fit what you can't dispute. Hell, you even got standard oil wrong to begin with, then you went and read the article I linked to and now you have another set of goal posts to apply there.

That's the problem with being such a literalist, you can't make the real world fit your literal viewpoint so you have to make exceptions. But once you start picking and choosing your exceptions your whole literalist based argument falls apart.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The caved into the owners of the copyright without whose permission they cannot sell their music.

So now the RIAA is not a monopoly. OK. BTW copyright is a monopoly too.
See how that term is really fuzzy? So much for that literalist viewpoint.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Hello? The definition of monopoly is that one company is so powerful that the can control the supply of a product or good. The RIAA is closer to a cartel as there multiple companies colluding with one another. This isn't being literal; this is being exact. That's as asinine as saying people are being literal when they say nuclear isn't a fossil fuel. It isn't by definition.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The definition of monopoly is that one company is so powerful that the can control the supply of a product or good.

Please define "control."

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

The thing is that monopoly is not one precise thing it is shades of gray

Um no. There is a legal and precise definition of monopoly. There are multiple laws--there is an even division of law that deals specifically with monopolies. For someone decrying how others don't know history, you seem not to know anti-trust law.

if it were one succinct definition you wouldn't be moving those goalposts to rationalize how all the other monopolies I've cited fit different requirements.

First of all criteria I've come from the multiple legal cases including US vs Microsoft:

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

Second, you haven't cited one source that supports your definition that highest market share is the only criteria for defining a monopoly. It seems you are moving the goalposts which you accuse me of. Hypocritical much?

The only difference is you are picking and choosing your requirements to fit what you can't dispute. Hell, you even got standard oil wrong to begin with, then you went and read the article I linked to and now you have another set of goal posts to apply there.

Where have you cited your definition is as you say it is? The article you linked supports my argument.

That's the problem with being such a literalist, you can't make the real world fit your literal viewpoint so you have to make exceptions. But once you start picking and choosing your exceptions your whole literalist based argument falls apart.

By your definition of monopoly everything is a monopoly. The most popular restaurant in town is a monopoly even though the one across the street from it is crowded. The definition had no meaning in your world. You the call it literal when you begin losing your argument as one simple logic test destroya your entire argument. In fact you cannot dispute it, can you? I've cited case law. Please cite your case law.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Standard Oil and MS could set whatever price they wanted. MS could force OEMs not to load Netscape or their license costs would go up. Please cite your source where having the highest marketshare is the sold definition of monopoly. You can't can you?

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Please define "control."

Standard Oil and MS could set whatever price they wanted.

Of course you realize that was not true, right? Neither company could set WHATEVER price they wanted. If they could have done that, then the prices they charged would have been substantially higher. With Standard Oil having only 70% of the market it is pretty clear that they were not setting WHATEVER price they wanted.

So that's a meaningless definition. Perhaps you would care to try again - remember something quantifiable than can be applied as a straight-forward yes/no test. Since you deny that the term "monopoly" is one that does not apply to shades of grey - even for layman's use - then black-and-white tests are your only option. HHI

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Um no. There is a legal and precise definition of monopoly.

Since we aren't lawyers, that isn't particularly useful. Seriously, I've said from the start that your literalism wasn't helpful and to retreat further into legalistic definitions is even worse. You have indeed cited case law, my argument from the start has never been about case law.

So far you've already denied that the RIAA is a monopoly, which destroyed your entire argument since my very first post made the equivalence between RIAA and Apple domination of the markets.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Since we aren't lawyers, that isn't particularly useful.

Then why don't we go with general reference sources like Dictionary.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

or Merriam-Webster

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly

Seriously, I've said from the start that your literalism wasn't helpful and to retreat further into legalistic definitions is even worse.

Please. This is your excuse that you cannot find anywhere in the whole of the Internet that supports your definition of monopoly. Just one source. Since you created your own interpretation of what monopoly means, everyone is being literal when they go with the commonly accepted definitions. Are you going to try to say black is white next?

You have indeed cited case law, my argument from the start has never been about case law.

I have support for my position. You have none. Period. End of story.

So far you've already denied that the RIAA is a monopoly, which destroyed your entire argument since my very first post made the equivalence between RIAA and Apple domination of the markets.

First of all, I said the RIAA is a cartel. The proper term is "cartel". Monopoly comes from the Greek with mono meaning "one". By definition, the RIAA is more than one company and by defintion not a monopoly. But there's me using the exact word in English (which isn't my first language) to describe something. What is it like in your world where can redefine words as you like?

Second of all, how is there any equivalence when the two things being compared are not even in the same category. The RIAA are exclusive owners while Apple is a non-exclusive reseller. The term that you seem to miss everytime is "exclusive". Wood is not a metal no matter how you want to redefine metal or wood.

Lastly, you can't refute any of my points that you can get music without ever going through Apple?

You keep using the term "monopoly". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

So that's a meaningless definition. Perhaps you would care to try again - remember something quantifiable than can be applied as a straight-forward yes/no test.

We can go with US vs Microsoft which you rejected or Dictionary.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

or Merriam-Webster

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly

Since you deny that the term "monopoly" is one that does not apply to shades of grey - even for layman's use - then black-and-white tests are your only option.

There are shades of gray; however, your definition is unsupported and overly simplistic. By your definition the most popular in town is a monopoly. By your definition, Apple is a monopoly only because you are redefining it to support your uninformed notion of monopoly. However a simple logic test destroys your argument. Apple does not have any exclusive control. Therefore it cannot be a monopoly.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

So, given that definition, how do you prove it? What if there was some objective measure that was generally considered indicative of a non-competitive market? HHI

Second of all, how is there any equivalence when the two things being compared are not even in the same category. The RIAA are exclusive owners while Apple is a non-exclusive reseller

The RIAA's cartel status has always been with respect to distribution channels. Itunes is just another distribution channel. The two are completely comparable. RIAA had a monopoly (not a perfect monopoly, just a monopoly) on physical distribution and Apple had the same for digital distribution.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

So, given that definition, how do you prove it?

First of all the whole definition is:

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Using only part of the definition and omitting the most important part of exclusivity is trying to redefine it.

Second of all it doesn't matter. Without exclusive control, how would Apple or anyone manipulate the price? Third, the fact that the copyright owner which is the RIAA or independent musician (and there are lots of them on iTunes) sets the price not Apple. I have friends who are in bands that have music on iTunes and they set prices.

What if there was some objective measure that was generally considered indicative of a non-competitive market?

And Steven Jobs could be secretly alive plotting to take over the world. If you have an accusation, state it. From what I've seen, Apple sells music because it sells iDevices. The convenience factor of how their ecosystem works for non-technical people have made their devices and store the success it is today

The RIAA's cartel status has always been with respect to distribution channels. Itunes is just another distribution channel. The two are completely comparable.

No, the RIAA are the owners just like every copyright owner is. They decide which channels to pursue or use. iTunes is a reseller and a non-exclusive one if the owner decides to use multiple channels. The key term is exclusivity. Without it, there is no monopoly.

Your argument is like analogous to saying that Walmart has a monopoly on coffee because it sells all the major brands and has the largest marketshare. The fact that I can get the same brands at the grocery store or Target is enough to show how silly that assertion is.

RIAA had a monopoly (not a perfect monopoly, just a monopoly) on physical distribution and Apple had the same for digital distribution.

The point you don't to seem to acknowledge is exclusivity. Apple doesn't have it.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

First of all the whole definition is:

  exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Using only part of the definition and omitting the most important part of exclusivity is trying to redefine it.

I'm sorry, but you are not parsing that correctly. See the OR in there? The "exclusive" modifier only applies to the part before the OR. I know you desperately want to use that literalist interpretation of "mono" to mean exactly one, but that's not what the definition you cited says.

Without exclusive control, how would Apple or anyone manipulate the price?

Come on man. Every single example of monopolies that I have already cited did not have exclusive control, only dominant. It is not a binary function. Here's the way it works in the real world - the less competitive a market, the more control the dominant sellers have over pricing. HHI

I have friends who are in bands that have music on iTunes and they set prices.

That is a technical truth that obscures the meaningful truth.. At best your friends have the ability to choose from three different price points that Apple permits to them.

iTunes Plus songs are available at one of three price points. In the U.S. the pricing is 0.69 USD, 0.99 USD, or 1.29 USD each.
https://support.apple.com/kb/ht1711

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

I'm sorry, but you are not parsing that correctly. See the OR in there? The "exclusive" modifier only applies to the part before the OR.

I'm sorry but don't you see it is the second part of the definition and most of them have "exclusive" in it. Again using only the narrow part that agrees with

But let's talk about the price manipulation. Note it does not say "price setting". All vendors can set prices. This is not manipulation. There are specific behaviors that legally and economically are classified price manipulation. Please state how Apple has engaged in price manipulation.

I know you desperately want to use that literalist interpretation of "mono" to mean exactly one, but that's not what the definition you cited says.

I know you want to say black is red but it's not true no matter now many times you say it. Roman mythology is not monotheistic now matter how you want to redefine monotheism.

I is not a binary function. Here's the way it works in the real world - the less competitive a market, the more control the dominant sellers have over pricing.

Apple is a non-exclusive reseller. They are not the sellers. The ultimate control is at the hands of the seller. If a band or company doesn't want to do business with Apple (like the Beatles), they have other choices. In the real world, companies didn't have a choice when it came to Ma Bell or MS.

That is a technical truth that obscures the meaningful truth.. At best your friends have the ability to choose from three different price points that Apple permits to them.

But they can choose the price can't they? Does Folger's (Proctor and Gamble) have the right to set the price of coffee at Walmart. Technically they do not. They can control what price they sell to Walmart which indirectly controls the price at which Walmart resells. Apple offers the owner some choices and the owner has the right not to do business at all if they don't like the price like the Beatles. This is the crux of capitalism. The owner misses out on the largest marketplace, but they have a choice. You wanted a consumer PC without Windows in the 90s from an OEM? Not bloody likely.

You however have not answered any of my questions: If highest marketshare is the sole criteria of monopoly would that lead to the most popular business in a category having a monopoly by default? The most popular restaurant in town with the most customers is a monopoly. Walmart has monopoly on consumer goods. This interpretation of the meaning is so broad that many businesses would be considered monopolies.

What is your source that highest marketshare is the only criteria for monopoly? You have never provided one; thus this definition only exists in your head.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm sorry but don't you see it is the second part of the definition and most of them have "exclusive" in it. Again using only the narrow part that agrees with

Do I need to teach you how to read a dictionary?
Apparently so.

Each numbered section is a distinctly separate context.
In this case (1) is market control (2) is government-granted privilege and (3) is possession unrelated to markets.

Within each numbered section there are multiple related definitions.
So, in this case section (1) has two different definitions that deal with market control - exclusive control or just a very strong influence.

Capiche?

Please state how Apple has engaged in price manipulation.

From your citation - "makes possible" does not mean "engages in." Asking me to prove that Apple has broken the law is ridiculous. Their ability to do so is what matters - markets with low competitiveness enable more price manipulation. Highly competitive markets do not. If only there was a widely accepted, objective measure of a market's competitiveness. HHI

Does Folger's (Proctor and Gamble) have the right to set the price of coffee at Walmart.

The difference is that P&G gets paid the same amount regardless of what Walmart sells their coffee for.

If highest marketshare is the sole criteria of monopoly

Never said that. I said overwhelming market advantage.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

Do I need to teach you how to read a dictionary?

There were six definitions offered. And none by you. You chose part b of only one. Even then seem to intent to ignore the exclusivity qualifier of all the other ones.

From your citation - "makes possible" does not mean "engages in."

Pleas state how Apple has made price manipulation possible.

Asking me to prove that Apple has broken the law is ridiculous.

You are the one that keeps insisting Apple is a monopoly. Yet when challenged, you offer no proof. That's like calling someone a murderer but when asked to identify the victim, you refuse.

Their ability to do so is what matters - markets with low competitiveness enable more price manipulation. Highly competitive markets do not.

So Apple has the ability to engage in monopolistic practices. Well I have the ability to be a mass murderer. That does not mean that I am one. Also, the fact that you can get music from other sources besides Apple destroys your argument about market competition. Google, Amazon, Microsoft (multiple stores) are the big online players and there are many minor players. That if we neglect CDs as a source of music.

If only there was a widely accepted, objective measure of a market's competitiveness.

What does that matter? If Apple was a monopoly there wouldn't be any market competition. It seems like you are fishing for any metric that tries to support your assertion.

The difference is that P&G gets paid the same amount regardless of what Walmart sells their coffee for.

So your answer is no. Yet you expect that Apple offers an owner unlimited price control that other companies and stores do not offer.

But you avoid the question: Does the copyright owner have control over what Apple offers and what price that Apple charges? The answer is yes. Yet you still maintain that Apple manipulate prices? Logic seems not to be your strong point.

Never said that. I said overwhelming market advantage.

You still have yet to cite a source for any definiti

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There were six definitions offered. And none by you. You chose part b of only one. Even then seem to intent to ignore the exclusivity qualifier of all the other ones.

So wait, you offered definitions, I picked one and now its not good enough because the other definitions said something different? Really?
My point all along has been that there are multiple definitions of monopoly so of course i picked one, I picked the one that applies here. Duh!

Pleas state how Apple has made price manipulation possible.

They didn't make it possible, they have it by virtue of their overwhelming market advantage. The less competition in a market, the more price control is available to the dominant companies in that market. If only there was a widely accepted, objective measure of a market's competitiveness. HHI

So Apple has the ability to engage in monopolistic practices. Well I have the ability to be a mass murderer. That does not mean that I am one.

Really? So now you can't be a monopoly unless you abuse your monopoly position?

the fact that you can get music from other sources besides Apple destroys your argument about market competition.

How many times are you going keep going back to that ridiculous requirement of exclusivity. Perfect monopolies are so rare as to basically not exist. MS was not a perfect monopoly, standard oil was not a perfect monopoly, us steel was not a perfect monopoly, att was not a perrfect monopoly. Come on man what is wrong with you?

Yet you expect that Apple offers an owner unlimited price control that other companies and stores do not offer.

I have never said "unlimited" price control. That's your argument. How about you show how MS, US Steel, ATT, Standard Oil had unlimited price control? Huh?

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

So wait, you offered definitions, I picked one and now its not good enough because the other definitions said something different?

You picked a definition that accuses Apple of price manipulation then refuse to explain how Apple has manipulated prices. You also picked the only one that avoided exclusivity which was destroying all your points.

My point all along has been that there are multiple definitions of monopoly so of course i picked one, I picked the one that applies here.

None of the definitions offered by me come close to your unsupported definition. I have yet to receive any citation that the definition of monopoly is as you say it is. Basically I'm providing all the support and you none.

They didn't make it possible, they have it by virtue of their overwhelming market advantage.

Nowhere in any defintion is having an overwhelming market advantage==having a monopoly. Walmart has an overwhelming advantage when it comes to coffee sales. Is it a monopoly? And again you refuse to cite anything that supports your twisted definition of monopoly. Therefore this definition must only exist in your head.

Your logic dictates:"since Apple has the ability to abuse power, it first supposes that it is one." This is opposite to what every court decides in US vs Microsoft before the judge could convict MS of abusing monopoly power, the prosecution must first establish that MS was a monopoly . This the three prong test. In your mind, you made up your own definiti the fact that you can get music from other sources besides Apple destroys your argument about market competition. How many times are you going keep going back to that ridiculous requirement of exclusivity. Perfect monopolies are so rare as to basically not exist. MS was not a perfect monopoly, standard oil was not a perfect monopoly, us steel was not a perfect monopoly, att was not a perrfect monopoly. Come on man what is wrong with you? Yet you expect that Apple offers an owner unlimited price control that other companies and stores do not offer. I have never said "unlimited" price control. That's your argument. How about you show how MS, US Steel, ATT, Standard Oil had unlimited price control? Huh?

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You picked a definition that accuses Apple of price manipulation then refuse to explain how Apple has manipulated prices.

There is no accusation in that definition. You made the accusation yourself and expected me to back it up. it is a total strawman. Hell, the definition is explicitly neutral "makes possible" not "does."

An overwhelming market advantage means you have the ability to manipulate prices. Are you saying that even with an overwhelming market advantage a company can not manipulate pricing?

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

the fact that you can get music from other sources besides Apple destroys your argument about market competition.

How many times are you going keep going back to that ridiculous requirement of exclusivity.

The term you seem intent on ignoring is in 5 of the 6 definitions. In the only one you picked, Apple is required to have the ability to control and manipulate prices. The fact of the matter is that other players exist; therefore by logic it does not have price control. Again logic is not your strong point.

Perfect monopolies are so rare as to basically not exist. MS was not a perfect monopoly, standard oil was not a perfect monopoly, us steel was not a perfect monopoly, att was not a perrfect monopoly.

So let's destroy this argument. Your point is that no perfect monopoly. You mentioned Standard Oil by the time it was broken had 70%. MS with over 90% of the PC market isn't a monopoly. Yet Apple with 63% of the market is a monopoly. Again your logic or math needs work. My math says 90 or 70 is greater than 63. If MS wasn't a monopoly neither is Apple. Yet you seem intent on twisting any definition because you keep losing every point.

How about you show how MS, US Steel, ATT, Standard Oil had unlimited price control? Huh?

Sure this is easy. MS essentially bankrupted Netscape by setting their browser at $0. MS threatened OEMs that their prices would rise if they installed Netscape. These are from the trial. Standard Oil engaged in all sort of illegal kickbacks from their vertical integration. They secretly owned engineering and pipe companies which would give them under the tablet as rebates. Their deals with railroad companies gave them the lowest rates and rebates.

You accuse Apple of price manipulation. You offer no proof. When pointed out that price manipulation requires that Apple set prices (which the copyright owners do), you offer no rebuttal. Your overly broad definition of monopoly would classify most businesses in this country are monopolies has not been rebutted. Basically I've provided all the information. And you refuse to provide one citation or rebuttal.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

There is no accusation in that definition. You made the accusation yourself and expected me to back it up. it is a total strawman. Hell, the definition is explicitly neutral "makes possible" not "does."

You picked the defintion. And refuse to explain a logical gap. How is Apple supposed to manipulate prices when they don't set prices? You refuse to answer this point. It's as theoretically possible as you and I being mass murderers. Every company is a monopoly by your twisting of the definition. Not that they have actually done anything.

An overwhelming market advantage means you have the ability to manipulate prices. Are you saying that even with an overwhelming market advantage a company can not manipulate pricing?

Again, Apple doesn't set the price. This is a simple fact. So therefore how can Apple manipulate prices they don't set? Also the existence of other players means that Apple does not have control over pricing for the market. You can get music cheaper by other stores. By that twist of logic, Walmart is a monopoly over coffee; I am a monopoly over coffee.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You picked the defintion. And refuse to explain a logical gap.

No, it is not a logical gap, it is you grasping at straws.

How is Apple supposed to manipulate prices when they don't set prices?

They do set the prices. They aren't like walmart buying wholsale and sellling retail - they are a middleman taking a fixed cut of 30% (which itself is ridiculous given that all they do is run a bunch of servers - that's a 50% markup for no physical stores, no physical inventory and no shipping costs, just moving bits around). A middleman that didn't have monopoly control wouldn't be able to dictate prices and would probably take a much smaller cut too.

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

My friends who have music on iTunes disagree with you. They control the price.

False appeal to authority. We've already discussed this - apple gives them a very limited choice for the sale price and zero choice for the price apple charges them - 30%. Completely non-negotiable - that is the very definition of price control, apple sets the price on both ends.

Compare that to the app store - that's where Apple lets publishers control price - they can pick any price they want. Still, stuck with 30% fees, but at least on one end Apple has given up price control.

Re: The real story

[UnknowingFool]

False appeal to authority. We've already discussed this - apple gives them a very limited choice for the sale price and zero choice for the price apple charges them - 30%.

This isn't an appeal to authority. The owner sets the price. This is fact. They don't set Apple's cut. A price is not a cut. And the owner is free to go to another reseller like Amazon or Google for a better deal. Oh wait, they get the same deal or worse. Wow like you redefining words as you see fit when you start losing every single argument.

Completely non-negotiable - that is the very definition of price control, apple sets the price on both ends.

The article you cited says Apple has three different prices for music. It does not say that Apple sets them. Please cite it anywhere where Apple sets determines the price for each track.

Compare that to the app store - that's where Apple lets publishers control price - they can pick any price they want. Still, stuck with 30% fees, but at least on one end Apple has given up price control.

Wow you have no concept of reality do you? Google charges 30%. Amazon charges 30-35%. Your gripe is that Apple charges an amount that you don't like. Yet you are not an artist that is affected. You don't know how difficult or costly it is to develop an infrastructure like iTunes. You accuse Apple of 50 markup but provide no proof. Then you talk about the App Store which is a red herring.

Have you found a source for your definitions yet?

Re: The real story

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The article you cited says Apple has three different prices for music. It does not say that Apple sets them. Please cite it anywhere where Apple sets determines the price for each track.

If you can't accept that limiting the choice of prices to 3 per-determined numbers is an exercise of control over the price, then I give up. You live in a different universe from the rest of us.

You accuse Apple of 50 markup but provide no proof.

I should have nailed that one down the first time. Markup is the difference between the buying and selling costs. This is not a mystery. On a 99 cent track, apple takes 30 cents. 30/69 = 44% ok? Not quite 50% but close enough. Grocery stores, to pick an example, have markups on on the order of 12%. And they have inventory, spoilage, shipping and retail floorspace costs. Apple is miking it. The bit players like amazon and google are also milking it simply because they can, because the market so non-competitive.

Massively dominant player in a non-competitive market = monopolist in common speech. And I'm done.

Re:See less and Less itunes

[Nerdfest]

It's not quite that easy. Apple seems to want to keep iTunes as part of its platform lock and doesn't have an iTunes app for Android. If they were interested in actually selling content rather than locking in users you'd think they'd have one.

Re:See less and Less itunes

[deergomoo]

...Then you must be in an Apple store. 80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store.

Yes, it's certainly not like like the iTunes Store is the single most popular music store worldwide or anything..

Re:Do Android users need itunes?

[gnasher719]

pple don't allow alternative stores on their (not your) devices, so buying from Amazon has extra problems :)

Are you clueless or just trying to be obnoxious? Any music that you buy from Amazon ends up in your iTunes library automatically. There is an amazingly simple API that you can use to put songs into the iTunes library: Just move it into the folder "~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/Automatically Add to iTunes". Which is what Amazon does.

Re:I'm Sexy :)

[BasilBrush]

That is "Just Broken", on a Android you don't need a third party program :). Having to remember such a complicated hierarchy of directories...and still use a third party program is a disgrace. iOS is so complicated.

Remembering directories is for Android users. There's no user file handling involved whatsoever in the Amazon/Apple process. Amazon's store downloads it to that directory. iTunes picks it up from that directory. That's implementation. User doesn't have to know that any more than they have to know HTML to read a web page.

iTunes Match

[tepples]

the point was the music our parents bought through Itunes in the beginning.. but are still listening to them.

I seem to remember Apple providing an arrangement called "iTunes Plus" that would let people who had bought DRM tracks redownload them as DRM-free m4a by subscribing to iTunes Match.

uh huh

[dotar]

10 years old and still a usability nightmare. How has it gained popularity when it actively works against the user? Stockholm Syndrome?

Re: I'm Sexy :)

[UnknowingFool]

So what you are saying is that no user should have to know what directory they put their stuff. Well that explains all the users that put all their files on the desktop.

Re:See less and Less itunes

[node 3]

You only get that here on Slashdot. In the real world, when I see people play music from a laptop 9 times out of 10 they are using iTunes to do it.

...Then you must be in an Apple store. 80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store. Its what you argue for in thread after thread. Short term hardware profits over long term advertising/content models from Google/Amazon. Its a niche player now.

You're confused. I can promise you that 80% of the world does not use Android phone for their digital music. iPods outnumber Android phones, people listen to music on their PCs as well, and nowhere near 80% of the world uses an Android device.

Not to mention that has fuck-all to do with iTunes, since owning an Android phone does not stop one from using iTunes. In fact, I'd wager that among Android phone owners, iTunes is the number one jukebox app.

Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen to them all simultaneously - takes 3 minutes.

Re:See less and Less itunes

[Wovel]

It was a silly statement. 80% of the people listening to music on their phones don't even use Android. In fact, I imagine iOS has 50% or more of mobile music listening.

Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million

[Em Adespoton]

Exactly! I don't understand why more people don't invest their $26 million in order to live off the interest?

Why don't more people have their butlers find for them a good financial advisor?

Mitt.

They use iTunes Match. This way, they can upgrade their string quartet, live rock band and new car from the ones hired on the black market to the versions provided by legitimate sources for a low annual fee of $26 (no million)... that $26 million is in Apple Fiat currency, after all :)