It also didn't help that no other store allowed burning to a CD for nearly a year!
But again, that was the case of the music companies requiring restrictions that made competition impossible. You can't fault Apple for that in 2003.
You can certainly fault Apple for it in 2007, but again that is nearly moot as more and more music becomes DRM free. We will have to see what happens with the subscription (if offered) before we cast judgement.
You mean "you couldn't buy brand-name tracks from any online store except Amazon.com or eMusic." I mention Amazon because it has all the labels and eMusic because it is the #2 online store right now.
So you say it is an issue where the iTunes service/subscription would prevent competing products from working, except that there are already online competing services that work, today.
Unless you are even more narrow in describing competing products as "subscription services relying on DRM"?
In which case, your argument is that FairPlay DRM prevents other competitors from offering a limiting subscription service for the iPod, correct?
If that is your argument, then yes, that is anticompetitive since Apple doesn't license FairPlay to other stores.
Does it help that iTunes isn't bundled with the iPod? That you have to download iTunes to use it? Because all the packaging for the iPod, and iPhone, is much too small to have a CD and the iPhone doesn't have any kind of "storage" mode where iTunes is stored on the phone itself (I know because I have one).
The last iPod I purchased in 2006 also didn't come with a CD, and I already had iTunes.
So a lot of the "bundling" arguments are moot because the user has to manually download iTunes!
Actually, now that you mention it, iPods are no longer bundled with iTunes. At least my iPhone didn't have it. Look at the new iPod cases, they are way too small to have a CD. You have to download iTunes in order to use it with your iPod.
So back on topic: EU can't accuse Apple of bundling iTunes if iTunes doesn't come with an iPod. The only place I've read where the EU is investigating Apple is over nonuniform pricing across the EU (here) and has noting to do with bundling. Also, the US isn't investigating Apple, either, it is a lawsuit filed by Thomas Slattery in California.
Can you tell me otherwise? I would like to know.
So regarding tying: Users still have to download iTunes. They aren't bundled, they aren't forced, they aren't tied. You can buy an iPod and use a third party product if you wish. Can you restate all your arguments with that fact in mind?
Then you tell me, why did Apple push for DRM free music? As I said earlier, it was features and not FairPlay that encouraged people to use Apple's store: The ability to synch to unlimited iPods, 5 computers, easy backup, and burn to CD. Since they were the only store to offer that, for nearly a year, don't you think that would give them a huge boost in users?
And what will happen in four years when Apple is #1 video distributor and the MPAA is sick of Apple's control of the market, and Apple asks for DRM free video, don't you think they will get it? Much like how last year labels offered DRM free music because they learned that DRM allows the key-holder to control the content, the consumers, and the profit?
No, my mistake. In 2003, you had no ability to transfer to an MP3 player at all! Apple was the first to allow that. So this is irrespective of licensing because Microsoft's DRM didn't allow it where Apple's DRM did.
Today, yes, MP3 and AAC is supported, as is Ogg and others, but in 2004 when the first P4S devices and stores showed up, the contract said no to non-Microsoft formats!
And yes you are right about video content, but I use the history of music to back up my support for Apple's refusal to license FairPlay for video: In four years, when Apple has attained dominant control, they can push for DRM free video and get it because the content owners are sick of being yoked to Apple. If Apple licensed FairPlay, it would only increase, not decrease, Apple's stranglehold on the market, so Apple's refusal to license FairPlay still smacks of "benign despot".
Well, if Apple continues to exert a stranglehold on FairPlay for video, when they ask for DRM-free video in a few years everyone will gladly do it so they can avoid being yoked to a single vendor. This is exactly what happened with music, after all.
My Vista systems don't seem to run smoother nor faster despite the aggressive caching. It seems to be slower than installing XP on the system. Perhaps I need more than 1GB of RAM? The point is that this system shouldn't be in place unless you have a significant (like 4GB, 8GB, or 16GB) of RAM in place.
The problem is that Vista isn't very good with 1GB of RAM, so the problem is compounded when the OS itself needs the RAM for itself and has none for speeding up the system.
Hmm, I would argue it was the price, ease of acquisition, ease of use, ability to burn to CD, ease of backup, and ease of transfer that made the iTunes store popular, in addition to being playable on the iPod.
After all, in 2003 when the store was opened, no other competitor allowed you to burn to CD, play on 5 computers, an unlimited number of iPods, or the ability to back up the files via drag and drop copy. The competitors only allowed you to play on a single computer, you had to copy license files to another computer if you wanted to transfer tracks to another machine, you had to back up both licenses and music, and you had no ability to transfer to an iPod at all.
Perhaps if the competition had all those features, or had released those features earlier, the competition (Plays4Sure) might have succeeded. Since P4S was released after the iTunes store, they had plenty of chances to get it right but didn't. Even worse, was license requirements that prohibited non Microsoft formats (such as AAC!) on P4S devices.
There is actually one good reason to refuse to license FairPlay; to prevent DRM from succeeding.
After all, in hindsight, Apple is right that DRM is a bad idea. Apple continues to advocate DRM free music, and in 2008 Amazon operates a DRM free store.
If Apple had licensed FairPlay in 2005 then you would have several stores selling DRM music today and probably no one selling DRM free music and everyone would be screaming about how FairPlay is even MORE locked to iPods.
Swap exists because there is not enough RAM to hold all data, so it is swapped to the HDD. We are talking about a situation where a system has so much RAM that swap is unnecessary, so instead parts of the HDD are stored in RAM instead!
That is the point. A buffer cache still requires spinning up the HDD to fill it; if this is used to replace the buffer cache, then the HDD is only spun up once, during boot, and never again except to synchronize the data in RAM to HDD.
Neither of you has shown how Apple is suppressing the competition.
Name a competitor and how they are or would be hurt in an anti-competitive (as opposed to competitive) manner.
Zen could offer a similar deal. Pay the licensors up front for an unlimited plan. Zune could do the same thing. So can Sony. Apple hasn't stopped any of them. The only thing you bring up is that a Zen user cannot use the iPod deal.
Just like a Mac user can't use NetFlix's download service. Or how a Mac user can't use the Zune media player.
Nintendo doesn't yet have a monopoly with the Wii, so bundling Wii Sports is not a problem. When Apple introduced the iPod, they obviously didn't have a monopoly, so bundling iTunes was not a problem. Are you saying, now, seven years later, that bundling iTunes is a problem? I'm not 100% sure if a monopoly is in of itself illegal in Europe, but again the point is that when iTunes was first bundled, neither iPod nor iTunes store was even close to a monopoly.
Also, I thought the EU investigation regarding Apple was due to non-uniform prices across each store, and had nothing to do with bundling, monopoly, or anti-trust. As best I can tell, the case was brought up by Novell in 1993 (more here) because Microsoft extracted a license fee for every PC shipped even if Windows was not installed on the system. That is not "bundling" or "tying", which is the point brought up here. Later a ruling was made that said Microsoft had to offer an unbundled version of XP so competitors (like Apple!) could create their own products that OEMs could bundle, instead.
Are you arguing then that Apple needs to sell an unbundled version of iPods so competitors have the ability to write their own software... such as the Zune manager, Windows Media Player? Or that OEMs need to have the ability to bundle iPods with their own software?
Anyway, I'm sorry for the tangents, it's getting hard to read/write/respond. If you wish to "reboot" the conversation, I'll restate my position: Apple is doing and has done nothing wrong. People have and could write other managers for the iPod; at current count, there are 13, including ones for Linux, Windows, and Mac. As far as I know, Apple has no prohibitions for any reseller to include "freebies" with their iPods, such as alternative managers. Apple has not prevented any competition; Amazon has a DRM free music store and continues to sell iPods, CDs, and competing MP3 players and WalMart and Best Buy continues to sell iPods, CDs, and competing MP3 players. Apple has not raised the price of iPods on any of them, nor threatened them (quite the opposite, WalMart threatened the licensors with not selling music/DVDs due to the threat of the Apple iTunes store!) Apple has not raised any barriers to entry: their pursuit of DRM free music has actually enhanced competition, thanks to Amazon's DRM free store Apple has no monopoly in music distribution since WalMart is currently the number 1 supplier of music
All Apple has done is tie (and not exclusively) iTunes to the iPod, and now the rumor of iPod subscriptions, and neither of those are anticompetitive since other competitors can do the same thing (Zune, Zen, Sony).
The problem with your assertion is that at the time, 2004, when DRM was prevalent and the iTunes store was tied to iTunes and iPod, neither the iPod nor the iTunes store had a monopoly! Apple's DRM existed because they did not want to license a competitor's DRM (makes sense) and they did not license the DRM because there was no reason to license it (the iPod didn't have anything close to a monopoly in 2004, since they had only like 40% of the market).
Today that is not true; yet at the same time, today it is okay to sell DRM free music!
Slashdot Mirror
You compare to the print version. Isn't that the point? WYSIWYG?
The print version is the benchmark, the video version is supposed to look like it!
If you don't tell us the font, family, weight, etc, how are we supposed to judge which is more correctly rendered?
I agree. Macs are by far the safer system to use on the internet :)
Well, what is your contribution to the discussion?
Apple currently has no live vulnerabilities, no Mac botnets, nor wild trojans despite besting 6% market share in the US.
Why would a laptop be less useful with two screens than a desktop with two monitors?
Are you therefore arguing it doesn't make sense for anyone to use a multi-monitor setup?
Why wouldn't a touch-screen provide the bump? Vibration (or advanced haptic technology) can provide that.
Even better, with a touch screen, EVERYWHERE you put your fingers, initially, is the homerow.
You mean until it is successful, right?
With vibration, haptic advances, visual, and audio feedback, what is wrong with a second touch sensitive screen as the keyboard?
Then when you don't need it as a keyboard, it can become a tool-kit, palette, and any other interface you need.
Don't the people own all powers not explicitly defined for the various governments?
It also didn't help that no other store allowed burning to a CD for nearly a year!
But again, that was the case of the music companies requiring restrictions that made competition impossible. You can't fault Apple for that in 2003.
You can certainly fault Apple for it in 2007, but again that is nearly moot as more and more music becomes DRM free. We will have to see what happens with the subscription (if offered) before we cast judgement.
You mean "you couldn't buy brand-name tracks from any online store except Amazon.com or eMusic." I mention Amazon because it has all the labels and eMusic because it is the #2 online store right now.
So you say it is an issue where the iTunes service/subscription would prevent competing products from working, except that there are already online competing services that work, today.
Unless you are even more narrow in describing competing products as "subscription services relying on DRM"?
In which case, your argument is that FairPlay DRM prevents other competitors from offering a limiting subscription service for the iPod, correct?
If that is your argument, then yes, that is anticompetitive since Apple doesn't license FairPlay to other stores.
The FTC says it isn't illegal to have a monopoly.
Does it help that iTunes isn't bundled with the iPod? That you have to download iTunes to use it? Because all the packaging for the iPod, and iPhone, is much too small to have a CD and the iPhone doesn't have any kind of "storage" mode where iTunes is stored on the phone itself (I know because I have one).
The last iPod I purchased in 2006 also didn't come with a CD, and I already had iTunes.
So a lot of the "bundling" arguments are moot because the user has to manually download iTunes!
Actually, now that you mention it, iPods are no longer bundled with iTunes. At least my iPhone didn't have it. Look at the new iPod cases, they are way too small to have a CD. You have to download iTunes in order to use it with your iPod.
So back on topic: EU can't accuse Apple of bundling iTunes if iTunes doesn't come with an iPod.
The only place I've read where the EU is investigating Apple is over nonuniform pricing across the EU (here) and has noting to do with bundling. Also, the US isn't investigating Apple, either, it is a lawsuit filed by Thomas Slattery in California.
Can you tell me otherwise? I would like to know.
So regarding tying: Users still have to download iTunes. They aren't bundled, they aren't forced, they aren't tied. You can buy an iPod and use a third party product if you wish. Can you restate all your arguments with that fact in mind?
Then you tell me, why did Apple push for DRM free music? As I said earlier, it was features and not FairPlay that encouraged people to use Apple's store: The ability to synch to unlimited iPods, 5 computers, easy backup, and burn to CD. Since they were the only store to offer that, for nearly a year, don't you think that would give them a huge boost in users?
And what will happen in four years when Apple is #1 video distributor and the MPAA is sick of Apple's control of the market, and Apple asks for DRM free video, don't you think they will get it? Much like how last year labels offered DRM free music because they learned that DRM allows the key-holder to control the content, the consumers, and the profit?
No, my mistake. In 2003, you had no ability to transfer to an MP3 player at all! Apple was the first to allow that. So this is irrespective of licensing because Microsoft's DRM didn't allow it where Apple's DRM did.
Today, yes, MP3 and AAC is supported, as is Ogg and others, but in 2004 when the first P4S devices and stores showed up, the contract said no to non-Microsoft formats!
And yes you are right about video content, but I use the history of music to back up my support for Apple's refusal to license FairPlay for video:
In four years, when Apple has attained dominant control, they can push for DRM free video and get it because the content owners are sick of being yoked to Apple. If Apple licensed FairPlay, it would only increase, not decrease, Apple's stranglehold on the market, so Apple's refusal to license FairPlay still smacks of "benign despot".
Well, if Apple continues to exert a stranglehold on FairPlay for video, when they ask for DRM-free video in a few years everyone will gladly do it so they can avoid being yoked to a single vendor. This is exactly what happened with music, after all.
My Vista systems don't seem to run smoother nor faster despite the aggressive caching. It seems to be slower than installing XP on the system. Perhaps I need more than 1GB of RAM? The point is that this system shouldn't be in place unless you have a significant (like 4GB, 8GB, or 16GB) of RAM in place.
The problem is that Vista isn't very good with 1GB of RAM, so the problem is compounded when the OS itself needs the RAM for itself and has none for speeding up the system.
Hmm, I would argue it was the price, ease of acquisition, ease of use, ability to burn to CD, ease of backup, and ease of transfer that made the iTunes store popular, in addition to being playable on the iPod.
After all, in 2003 when the store was opened, no other competitor allowed you to burn to CD, play on 5 computers, an unlimited number of iPods, or the ability to back up the files via drag and drop copy. The competitors only allowed you to play on a single computer, you had to copy license files to another computer if you wanted to transfer tracks to another machine, you had to back up both licenses and music, and you had no ability to transfer to an iPod at all.
Perhaps if the competition had all those features, or had released those features earlier, the competition (Plays4Sure) might have succeeded. Since P4S was released after the iTunes store, they had plenty of chances to get it right but didn't. Even worse, was license requirements that prohibited non Microsoft formats (such as AAC!) on P4S devices.
There is actually one good reason to refuse to license FairPlay; to prevent DRM from succeeding.
After all, in hindsight, Apple is right that DRM is a bad idea. Apple continues to advocate DRM free music, and in 2008 Amazon operates a DRM free store.
If Apple had licensed FairPlay in 2005 then you would have several stores selling DRM music today and probably no one selling DRM free music and everyone would be screaming about how FairPlay is even MORE locked to iPods.
Swap exists because there is not enough RAM to hold all data, so it is swapped to the HDD. We are talking about a situation where a system has so much RAM that swap is unnecessary, so instead parts of the HDD are stored in RAM instead!
That is the point. A buffer cache still requires spinning up the HDD to fill it; if this is used to replace the buffer cache, then the HDD is only spun up once, during boot, and never again except to synchronize the data in RAM to HDD.
Given that the core components of an OS are only a few GB, even 8GB systems might be able to do this, today.
Neither of you has shown how Apple is suppressing the competition.
Name a competitor and how they are or would be hurt in an anti-competitive (as opposed to competitive) manner.
Zen could offer a similar deal. Pay the licensors up front for an unlimited plan. Zune could do the same thing. So can Sony. Apple hasn't stopped any of them. The only thing you bring up is that a Zen user cannot use the iPod deal.
Just like a Mac user can't use NetFlix's download service.
Or how a Mac user can't use the Zune media player.
Now we have some interesting conversation points:
Nintendo doesn't yet have a monopoly with the Wii, so bundling Wii Sports is not a problem.
When Apple introduced the iPod, they obviously didn't have a monopoly, so bundling iTunes was not a problem. Are you saying, now, seven years later, that bundling iTunes is a problem? I'm not 100% sure if a monopoly is in of itself illegal in Europe, but again the point is that when iTunes was first bundled, neither iPod nor iTunes store was even close to a monopoly.
Also, I thought the EU investigation regarding Apple was due to non-uniform prices across each store, and had nothing to do with bundling, monopoly, or anti-trust. As best I can tell, the case was brought up by Novell in 1993 (more here) because Microsoft extracted a license fee for every PC shipped even if Windows was not installed on the system. That is not "bundling" or "tying", which is the point brought up here. Later a ruling was made that said Microsoft had to offer an unbundled version of XP so competitors (like Apple!) could create their own products that OEMs could bundle, instead.
Are you arguing then that Apple needs to sell an unbundled version of iPods so competitors have the ability to write their own software... such as the Zune manager, Windows Media Player? Or that OEMs need to have the ability to bundle iPods with their own software?
Anyway, I'm sorry for the tangents, it's getting hard to read/write/respond. If you wish to "reboot" the conversation, I'll restate my position:
Apple is doing and has done nothing wrong.
People have and could write other managers for the iPod; at current count, there are 13, including ones for Linux, Windows, and Mac. As far as I know, Apple has no prohibitions for any reseller to include "freebies" with their iPods, such as alternative managers.
Apple has not prevented any competition; Amazon has a DRM free music store and continues to sell iPods, CDs, and competing MP3 players and WalMart and Best Buy continues to sell iPods, CDs, and competing MP3 players. Apple has not raised the price of iPods on any of them, nor threatened them (quite the opposite, WalMart threatened the licensors with not selling music/DVDs due to the threat of the Apple iTunes store!)
Apple has not raised any barriers to entry: their pursuit of DRM free music has actually enhanced competition, thanks to Amazon's DRM free store
Apple has no monopoly in music distribution since WalMart is currently the number 1 supplier of music
All Apple has done is tie (and not exclusively) iTunes to the iPod, and now the rumor of iPod subscriptions, and neither of those are anticompetitive since other competitors can do the same thing (Zune, Zen, Sony).
The problem with your assertion is that at the time, 2004, when DRM was prevalent and the iTunes store was tied to iTunes and iPod, neither the iPod nor the iTunes store had a monopoly! Apple's DRM existed because they did not want to license a competitor's DRM (makes sense) and they did not license the DRM because there was no reason to license it (the iPod didn't have anything close to a monopoly in 2004, since they had only like 40% of the market).
Today that is not true; yet at the same time, today it is okay to sell DRM free music!
What? Haven't you seen Canonball Run?
They could make a movie/tv-show out of this. Week by week updates, blogs, everything!