I know having a monopoly isn't illegal (you're trolling, right?). But using a pre-existing monopoly in one arena, to suppress competition in another, is.
Whether they have a monopoly or not is a different issue. I don't have the relevant figures, and I don't know where courts draw the line. I'd say if iTunes is >75% of the download mp3 market, and the nearest competitor has 10% or less, that's a monopoly. That's off the top of my head, and ultimately, what does my opinion matter?
Barriers to entry (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
Apple has established no barrier to prevent others from entering the market; witness Amazon's MP3 store
Witness Amazon's mp3 store is right. It's exactly like the MSFT bundling issue. I'm not saying the Amazon service can't exist. But their ability to compete would be restricted by this move by Apple, as Apple would be leveraging their monopoly. Man, it's simple, and this will not happen if Apples lawyers have a clue.
Don't ya see Sam! The consumer is hurt as, in order to take advantage of the (iTunes monopoly based) all you can eat deal, they are forced to compromise in choice of player. That's the whole point.
I suspect we might be boring the others now, and I've tried my best to explain it. I guess we'll just have to see how it all unfolds.
Offering a subscription service to iPod owners is not anticompetitive because it does not prevent the competition from responding in like, nor from competing.
That would be true, if there was no monopoly.
This isn't like the Compaq/Netscape instance. Instead it is like the MSFT anti-trust violation of using their OS monopoly to compromise the media player market.
If MSFT fixed the flaws with OOXML then there wouldn't be a problem.
Pop quiz, hot shot! Reconcile your statement above with your statement below.
this is how MSFT works if you don't know this then go back and look at the past 30 years of how MSFT treats it's customers, vendors, and slaves.
For bonus points, explain how what you say is a reply to my post.
Standards need to be open, unencumbered by patents, and as easy to implement by third parties as they are by the originators. MSFT has failed in these basic requirements.
Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. If MSFT had corrected the flaws, they'd probably be able to crowbar their 'standard' through the relevant hoops.
As it is, a true, open, unencumbered standard will instead prevail.
Seriously, will MSFT never learn? They are setting themselves up for *4 more years* of poor implementation, and all because they have not learned that 100x the workforce doesn't equal 100x the product, but rather a bloated monster.
Slashdot Mirror
You are the first (of about 30 posters) to understand the issue. Have one more beer on me.
Because Napster and MSFT aren't the same company.
They are cool, but let's not take our future overlords' name in vain.
Did other browsers/media players stop working on windows when MSFT had bundled their own browser/media player?
No. But because MSFT yoked their versions to their monopoly product, it violated anti-trust laws.
I realise this is less than entirely straight forward, but honestly people, read the sig before you reply again. Then don't.
A clear-cut case of MSFT-induced compassion fatigue.
I know having a monopoly isn't illegal (you're trolling, right?). But using a pre-existing monopoly in one arena, to suppress competition in another, is.
Whether they have a monopoly or not is a different issue. I don't have the relevant figures, and I don't know where courts draw the line. I'd say if iTunes is >75% of the download mp3 market, and the nearest competitor has 10% or less, that's a monopoly. That's off the top of my head, and ultimately, what does my opinion matter?
Explain in your analogyhow Toyota are leveraging a monopoly in one area to suppress competition in another.
(I am now figuring that you are vexatiously misunderstanding the issue, or are honestly not ever going to be able to figure it out- I quit!)
Don't ya see Sam! The consumer is hurt as, in order to take advantage of the (iTunes monopoly based) all you can eat deal, they are forced to compromise in choice of player. That's the whole point.
I suspect we might be boring the others now, and I've tried my best to explain it. I guess we'll just have to see how it all unfolds.
This isn't like the Compaq/Netscape instance. Instead it is like the MSFT anti-trust violation of using their OS monopoly to compromise the media player market.
Non ipod owners cannot access this new, all you can eat deal. That's where the problem lies.
M-o-n-o-p-o-l-y (both of ipods & itunes)
Because they hold a monopoly.
Compare it to MSFT's situation- There are numerous browsers/media players. But when they bundle their own, and are a monopoly, they've broken the law.
The anticompetitive part is if they don't extend this deal to non-ipod owners.
Surely this is exploiting your monopoly in one area (portable digital music players) to support your other operations.
They better let me buy into the same deal with my creative/sony/whatever player, or I'm going to tell the EU on them....
Standards need to be open, unencumbered by patents, and as easy to implement by third parties as they are by the originators. MSFT has failed in these basic requirements.
It was Miguel 'The Mexican quisling' de Icaza.
I don't think payment is necessary though, given enough people in any subset, you'll always be able to find the one that doesn't get it.
Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. If MSFT had corrected the flaws, they'd probably be able to crowbar their 'standard' through the relevant hoops.
As it is, a true, open, unencumbered standard will instead prevail.
Did you read TFA... oh, sorry, I forgot.
I'd rather work with Mono any day...
Seriously, will MSFT never learn? They are setting themselves up for *4 more years* of poor implementation, and all because they have not learned that 100x the workforce doesn't equal 100x the product, but rather a bloated monster.
But it will keep us in jokes.
The same cannot be said of Ubuntu.
According to the internets, Dextrocardia is believed to occur in approximately 1 in 100 people.
Your 99% figure for MSFT therefore has a ring of truth, if not truthiness.
We really have some obscurity-loving masochists among our ranks.
Army's clue-bat still many, many times too small.