Except for the fact that Amazon could do exactly the same thing. Offer a lifetime subscription; nothing is stopping them!
That is the point of anti-competitive, it prevents competitors from competing. This does not prevent Amazon from offering a similar service at all.
In the Microsoft case, it wasn't IE that was the problem, it was withholding Windows licenses from Compaq and IBM that was the problem. Again, Apple has done nothing with their iPod monopoly to hurt Amazon. If they made iPods incompatible with Amazon MP3s or withheld iPods from Amazon you would have an argument. As it stands, bundling is not illegal nor wrong, even for monopolies.
The court of law found that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws not because they yoked IE to Windows, but because they threatened to withhold Windows licenses (abusing their monopoly since Compaq could not get it from anywhere else) for bundling Netscape with their PCs.
You keep messing this basic fact up. Microsoft was found guilty because they used their Windows monopoly to prevent vendors from bundling Netscape; not guilty because they bundled IE. It's detailed QUITE promonently here and here. Read your own sig. You sound like a fool.
Microsoft audited IBM with a very real consequence of not licensing Windows in time for the back to school season, because they were developing a competing product called OS/2. Microsoft threatened to withhold Windows licenses from Compaq for placing Netscape icons instead of IE icons on the desktop.
Both would have seriously hurt Compaq and IBM if they could not sell Windows PCs, at the time.
This would be akin to Apple withholding iPod shipments from Amazon while they did a patent audit of the Amazon store to ensure none of iTunes patents were being violated. This has not happened. Nothing even similar has happened.
The best argument you can bring is that this is like Microsoft bundling IE, yet that was not wrong. It was the manipulation of their WIndows licenses (and by analogy in this case, iPods) that was the violation.
Yes, that explains why Microsoft entered the market with the Zune, why Creative and SanDisk continue to undercut Apple in price, and why Sony continues to create Walkmen, right?
So are you saying it was the DRM that made the iPod popular? Or was it the DRM that made the iTunes store popular?
Because in that period of time if you divided the number of tracks by the number of iPods, you get something like 20 iTunes tracks per iPod.
In comparison, you get something like 20 to 50 CDs and untold number of P2P downloads per iPod too.
In any case, it's hard to argue any sort of "monopoly boosting" effect since at that time Apple had neither a monopoly in music nor iPods; even today they are the #2 retailer behind WalMart (in music).
No, the crux of my argument is that Microsoft used their Windows monopoly to threaten Compaq into not bundling Netscape, by suggesting they would terminate Windows licenses if Netscape was bundled on Compaq machines.
Apple is not bad because they have not threatened anyone with their iPod monopoly in order to further their iTunes or iTunes store efforts. They didn't stop WalMart from selling (or even opening) a music store to compete with iTunes by withdrawing iPods, they didn't stop Amazon from opening and selling music, competing MP3 players, or competing software, by withdrawing or raising prices on iPods.
So you explain why Apple is bad, maybe you know more than the other poster. Everything Apple has done is fair game; Nintendo bundles Wii Sports with the Wii, Microsoft bundles Zune software with the Zune, IE with Windows, and WMP with Windows. Why is it wrong for Apple to bundle iTunes or offer a special subscription plan to iPod owners?
That is my point, they aren't. Toyota developed a hybrid Prius several years ago, and found it was a success and started offering hybrid versions of their Camry, Lexus, and Highlander vehicles to the point that today, the only viable hybrid vehicles are Toyotas (a local monopoly in hybrid vehicles). Sure there is competition in the Ford Escape and Honda Civic, but those are a tiny portion of the market.
In the same way, Apple had a non monopoly player, the iPod, in 2001, with which they bundled iTunes. In 2003 they released a PC version with iTunes, and it was still non-monopoly, and they also offered iTunes free for anyone to download (Mac or PC), and in 2004 they offered a store that was not tied to the iPod because anyone with iTunes could play it. By 2006, when they could be argued to have a monopoly, it was because people actively preferred the iPod, and when in 2008 it is clear that iTunes is the #2 music retailer in the US (world?), it was not because of the iPod (since only 20 songs per iPod were calculated to be iTunes purchases), but because it offered features that people wanted! The ability to buy individual tracks simply, to copy and burn to CD, and to backup without any license finangling, made the iTunes store popular.
At no point did they use one monopoly to create another. The iPod has always been bundled with iTunes, and as far as I can tell, retailers are free to bundle alternatives if they wish (at one point, before writing iTunes for Windows, MusicMatch Jukebox was bundled with iPods), just like today retailers are free to bundle Netscape, Opera, or Safari with Windows PCs.
Yet the point of Microsoft's conviction is that at one point Microsoft made actions to prevent people from bundling Netscape or AOL with Windows in order to deny Netscape any traction and to promote IE. Apple has not done anything like that with the iPod or iTunes, so it's hard to call them "anticompetitive". What you are accusing them is attempting to BE competitive by offering more features at a better price than the competition.
Again, bundling is great; Nintendo does it with Wii Sports, Microsoft does it with Windows Media Player and IE, or versions of their XBox with Halo, Sony does it with versions of their PS3 with MotorStorm. Bundling is fine as it is straight competition.
It is when you use one monopoly, like the iPod, to prevent a competitor from entering another market, like music stores, that this becomes sour. And until we find proof that Apple told WalMart to kill their music store so that Apple would continue to supply iPods to them, there has been no proof nor allegations that Apple has acted uncompetitively.
Except there is nothing anticompetitive about Apple's bundling. Microsoft got in trouble because they threatened to terminate Compaq's Windows licenses for bundling Netscape. Apple would only be in trouble if they stopped supplying iPods to WalMart because WalMart bundled Rhapsody with each iPod; I do not think Apple has taken any such steps to stop this action.
See, and this is why it's important to use Microsoft as an example correctly, Microsoft got in trouble for using one monopoly, Windows, to leverage another, Internet Explorer. They manipulated the market by threatening Compaq; in this case, however, Apple has not manipulated the market. They have not threatened anyone with the iPod in order to give iTunes, or the iTunes store, any advantages. They didn't strongarm WalMart into dropping their music store in order to receive iPods, they didn't strongarm Amazon into halting their DRM free music sales in order to sell iPods, they didn't strongarm Best Buy into stopping the sales of music in order to sell iPods.
So they bundle iTunes with iPods, how is that any different than Nintendo bundling Wii Play with their Wii? See, the point is that when Apple started bundling iTunes with the iPod, seven years ago, they weren't a monopoly. They "grew" their monopoly honestly, and in the same vein, they do the same thing everyone else is doing; the Zune comes free with their Zune Jukebox, Sonys come with SonicStage, Creative Zens come with MediaConnect (or whatever they are called), etc.
The big difference is that Apple ALSO provides iTunes free to both Windows and Macs, regardless of whether they own an iPod or iPhone. The Zune and Sony software is only available for Windows users, and for the longest time you could not download Creative's media player without paying a fee or buying a new jukebox!
So to reiterate; Apple hasn't done anything wrong other than be the most popular MP3 player, music store, and jukebox. As Amazon has proven, DRM free MP3 sales are quite possible, so anyone can offer a competing music store. As Windows Media Player, and iTunes too, has proven, bundling isn't an advantage (otherwise everyone would be using Windows Media Player and not iTunes!). Apple hasn't used one monopoly to create another, since they introduced all their products in a pre-monopoly state and made them popular through sheer force of effort.
As an example; look at AppleTV. Their iTunes and iPod monopoly hasn't done anything to help it, and they haven't done anything anticompetitive to give AppleTV a boost.
You can if it's DRM free, which is one of Apple's initiatives. It isn't like Apple is going to stop you from giving away your MP3s (MP4s technically), so long as you obey copyright law at the same time.
Coincidentally, it is copyright law that forbids you from selling your MP4, not Apple.
How do you reconcile your viewpoint with Apple's continued push for DRM-free music, which they and Amazon both happen to sell?
DRM free music encourages no lock-in and no barrier of entry; it's something people have dismissed for years as unrealistic, yet it's something Apple has somehow managed to pull off. On the flip side, licensing FairPlay to other music stores would have actively discouraged DRM-free music because FairPlay would have become the industry standard AND propped up iPod sales.
Yes, not licensing FairPlay is anticompetitive, but with the explicit (and in hindsight, correct) intention of promoting DRM free music as a benefit to consumers.
That is like arguing that a Toyota Prius (or any innovation or feature) is anticompetitive because the competition doesn't have it!
A consumer is forced to choose here because Apple is being competitive, not anticompetitive. Microsoft could, can, and should do this, and there is no barrier here. Sony can, could, and should do this too, and there is no barrier here. In these cases then none of Apple's actions have prevented competition, competitors from acting, or consumers from benefiting.
Unless you think it is wrong for Toyota to offer the Prius in a hybrid model without also offering a Prius in a non-hybrid model!
Which is identical to Microsoft maintaining their monopoly by making the next version of Direct3d Windows only, or Nintendo by only releasing Pokemon on the DS.
There is nothing wrong with an iPod only deal if they aren't actively hurting competitors; again, the example of raising iPod prices for people who own Creatives would be anticompetitive. So would denying sale of iPods to WalMart for supporting PlaysForSure or Zune, or to Amazon for running an MP3 store.
And this doesn't hurt consumers because consumers benefit from this deal (if they buy it). And consumers who don't buy it aren't hurt, at all. The absence of benefit is not harm.
All right, here is a list of common anticompetitive practices culled from Wiki: * Dumping, where products are sold into a market at a low price which renders competition impossible, in order to wipe out competitors. This might be dumping if Apple did not "pass on" the price to consumers. Given the initial up-front fee, however, the consumer appears to be paying fairly for this service.
* Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is 'tied' to purchase from a supplier. This isn't exclusive dealing because the consumer can still buy music from Amazon, WalMart, Best Buy, etc and use it on the iPod. Likewise the music distributors are free to continue selling CDs and license to Amazon.
* 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
* Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market. This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia so all paid the same price for licenses. This is not happening.
* Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia to lock out a certain vendor. This is not happening.
* Dividing territories, e.g., you get everything west of the Mississippi, we take everything east This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia for different regional markets. This is not happening.
* Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist to discourage economic entry into a market. If we argue that Apple is a monopoly in MP3 players, this would only be applicable if they set the price of iPods low enough to prevent competitors; since this doesn't apply to the music store, nor is Apple charging too low a price, this doesn't apply.
* Product tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be bought together; this prevents consumer choice. This would apply if the products weren't actually related; iPods play music, so purchasing a music subscription with your iPod actually makes sense. This also does not prevent consumer choice because consumers would have the option of not buying into the subscription.
* Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently. Resellers are free to raise prices; lowering prices would lead to losses and that is not illegal nor prohibited by Apple either.
* Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market This is what Microsoft practiced, using it's monopoly to prevent Netscape from gaining traction. Apple has not practiced that here, either.
So? That isn't illegal. The illegal part comes in when Apple acts in an anticompetitive manner (defined by antitrust law as harmful to consumers) using their monopoly. How is offering special deals to iPod owners anticompetitive? They aren't using their iPod monopoly to hurt consumers, in this case they use it to help them by giving them special bonuses.
They aren't hurting consumers with this offer. They aren't hurting competitors with this offer. They aren't hurting affiliates with this offer.
Therefore there is nothing illegally anticompetitive with this offer.
They would need to be using their iPod monopoly to hurt the consumer; like raising prices of iPods for users of other music stores, or denying access to stores like Amazon or Walmart for running music stores.
Read this. There is nothing wrong in having or acquiring a monopoly as long as you didn't do anything anticompetitive/illegal to acquire it or to have it.
In this case Apple has not done anything anticompetitive nor illegal. The only way I can see this being anticompetitive is if this offer disabled iPods or iPhones of users who were found to also own Creative or Sony products. In other words, using their monopoly on iPods to hurt consumers in order to hurt Creative or Sony.
There is nothing illegal with having a monopoly; it is, as I said earlier, only illegal when you engage in anticompetitive behavior when you have a monopoly.
In the first case, Apple may have a monopoly in MP3 players. However they have done nothing anticompetitive (again, the example where Microsoft threatened to terminate Windows licenses to Compaq because they bundled Netscape). Anticompetitive means it hurts Apple but it hurts their competitors more. Anticompetitive would be withholding iPods from WalMart until WalMart stops selling Sony.
Offering a subscription service to iPod owners is not anticompetitive because it does not prevent the competition from responding in like, nor from competing.
Microsoft terminating Windows licenses from Compaq is anticompetitive because it stops Compaq from bundling Netscape; stopping the competition by manipulating their monopoly in Windows licenses.
So, again, how is offering a subscription service for iPods and iPhones anticompetitive? It doesn't stop Amazon from offering DRM free MP3s, it doesn't stop Microsoft from releasing their own subscriptions, it doesn't stop Sony from partnering with Rhapsody for a similar service.
No it isn't. That's like arguing Microsoft is illegally anticompetitive for not releasing Office for Linux, Nintendo is anticompetitive for not releasing Metroid Prime for the XBox 360. In fact, that is like arguing "exclusive deals" are illegally anticompetitive.
As it stands, non iPod owners can still buy these songs from the iTunes store, on CD, or via other distributors, so until Apple commands something like 80% of the market, they can't be accused of illegally abusing their monopoly.
It is a good thing then that Apple is such a strong proponent of DRM-free music. Now we just have to wait for all the music in the iTunes store to be DRM free...
Why do you think they won't release Darwin for the iPhone? The Darwin page has entries for the iPhone's webkit and java engine. I mean, the iPhone isn't even a year old and only has a beta SDK!
People said the exact same thing about the Intel version of Darwin, yet they did release the Intel versions of Darwin!
A more secure platform is better for the consumer; likewise, a better product (compared to the competition) is also better for the consumer.
Those two reasons are most of why the consumer continues to support Apple's "garbage" products. It helps that the competition is Windows Mobile, Motorola, Sony-Ericcson, and Nokia.
Ah, I misunderstood. How does releasing such a device help Apple? It surely doesn't have the margin nor volume to satisfy Apple's need for profit, short of selling it for $1k... And who would buy an iPod touch for $1k?
Explain why this is better for Apple than their existing strategy, which has sold over 4m iPhones already? Locking the phones has motivated a lot of hackers to discover exploits and security holes "for free" in a non malicious manner which Apple has promptly fixed.
An open strategy likely would not have discovered all of them nearly so quickly. Finally, all the "bricked" iPhones were unbricked at a later time...
Except for the fact that there have already been beneficial side effects of iPhone locking; the majority of which are security exploits that hackers discovered that Apple was able to fix. No such benefit occurs in media DRM.
Then there is the other point; what makes you think Apple 'unofficially' cares? The existence of hacked phones indicates some level of indifference.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that Amazon could do exactly the same thing. Offer a lifetime subscription; nothing is stopping them!
That is the point of anti-competitive, it prevents competitors from competing. This does not prevent Amazon from offering a similar service at all.
In the Microsoft case, it wasn't IE that was the problem, it was withholding Windows licenses from Compaq and IBM that was the problem. Again, Apple has done nothing with their iPod monopoly to hurt Amazon. If they made iPods incompatible with Amazon MP3s or withheld iPods from Amazon you would have an argument. As it stands, bundling is not illegal nor wrong, even for monopolies.
The court of law found that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws not because they yoked IE to Windows, but because they threatened to withhold Windows licenses (abusing their monopoly since Compaq could not get it from anywhere else) for bundling Netscape with their PCs.
You keep messing this basic fact up. Microsoft was found guilty because they used their Windows monopoly to prevent vendors from bundling Netscape; not guilty because they bundled IE. It's detailed QUITE promonently here and here. Read your own sig. You sound like a fool.
Microsoft audited IBM with a very real consequence of not licensing Windows in time for the back to school season, because they were developing a competing product called OS/2.
Microsoft threatened to withhold Windows licenses from Compaq for placing Netscape icons instead of IE icons on the desktop.
Both would have seriously hurt Compaq and IBM if they could not sell Windows PCs, at the time.
This would be akin to Apple withholding iPod shipments from Amazon while they did a patent audit of the Amazon store to ensure none of iTunes patents were being violated. This has not happened. Nothing even similar has happened.
The best argument you can bring is that this is like Microsoft bundling IE, yet that was not wrong. It was the manipulation of their WIndows licenses (and by analogy in this case, iPods) that was the violation.
Yes, that explains why Microsoft entered the market with the Zune, why Creative and SanDisk continue to undercut Apple in price, and why Sony continues to create Walkmen, right?
So are you saying it was the DRM that made the iPod popular? Or was it the DRM that made the iTunes store popular?
Because in that period of time if you divided the number of tracks by the number of iPods, you get something like 20 iTunes tracks per iPod.
In comparison, you get something like 20 to 50 CDs and untold number of P2P downloads per iPod too.
In any case, it's hard to argue any sort of "monopoly boosting" effect since at that time Apple had neither a monopoly in music nor iPods; even today they are the #2 retailer behind WalMart (in music).
No, the crux of my argument is that Microsoft used their Windows monopoly to threaten Compaq into not bundling Netscape, by suggesting they would terminate Windows licenses if Netscape was bundled on Compaq machines.
Apple is not bad because they have not threatened anyone with their iPod monopoly in order to further their iTunes or iTunes store efforts. They didn't stop WalMart from selling (or even opening) a music store to compete with iTunes by withdrawing iPods, they didn't stop Amazon from opening and selling music, competing MP3 players, or competing software, by withdrawing or raising prices on iPods.
So you explain why Apple is bad, maybe you know more than the other poster. Everything Apple has done is fair game; Nintendo bundles Wii Sports with the Wii, Microsoft bundles Zune software with the Zune, IE with Windows, and WMP with Windows. Why is it wrong for Apple to bundle iTunes or offer a special subscription plan to iPod owners?
That is my point, they aren't. Toyota developed a hybrid Prius several years ago, and found it was a success and started offering hybrid versions of their Camry, Lexus, and Highlander vehicles to the point that today, the only viable hybrid vehicles are Toyotas (a local monopoly in hybrid vehicles). Sure there is competition in the Ford Escape and Honda Civic, but those are a tiny portion of the market.
In the same way, Apple had a non monopoly player, the iPod, in 2001, with which they bundled iTunes. In 2003 they released a PC version with iTunes, and it was still non-monopoly, and they also offered iTunes free for anyone to download (Mac or PC), and in 2004 they offered a store that was not tied to the iPod because anyone with iTunes could play it. By 2006, when they could be argued to have a monopoly, it was because people actively preferred the iPod, and when in 2008 it is clear that iTunes is the #2 music retailer in the US (world?), it was not because of the iPod (since only 20 songs per iPod were calculated to be iTunes purchases), but because it offered features that people wanted! The ability to buy individual tracks simply, to copy and burn to CD, and to backup without any license finangling, made the iTunes store popular.
At no point did they use one monopoly to create another. The iPod has always been bundled with iTunes, and as far as I can tell, retailers are free to bundle alternatives if they wish (at one point, before writing iTunes for Windows, MusicMatch Jukebox was bundled with iPods), just like today retailers are free to bundle Netscape, Opera, or Safari with Windows PCs.
Yet the point of Microsoft's conviction is that at one point Microsoft made actions to prevent people from bundling Netscape or AOL with Windows in order to deny Netscape any traction and to promote IE. Apple has not done anything like that with the iPod or iTunes, so it's hard to call them "anticompetitive". What you are accusing them is attempting to BE competitive by offering more features at a better price than the competition.
Again, bundling is great; Nintendo does it with Wii Sports, Microsoft does it with Windows Media Player and IE, or versions of their XBox with Halo, Sony does it with versions of their PS3 with MotorStorm. Bundling is fine as it is straight competition.
It is when you use one monopoly, like the iPod, to prevent a competitor from entering another market, like music stores, that this becomes sour. And until we find proof that Apple told WalMart to kill their music store so that Apple would continue to supply iPods to them, there has been no proof nor allegations that Apple has acted uncompetitively.
Except there is nothing anticompetitive about Apple's bundling. Microsoft got in trouble because they threatened to terminate Compaq's Windows licenses for bundling Netscape. Apple would only be in trouble if they stopped supplying iPods to WalMart because WalMart bundled Rhapsody with each iPod; I do not think Apple has taken any such steps to stop this action.
See, and this is why it's important to use Microsoft as an example correctly, Microsoft got in trouble for using one monopoly, Windows, to leverage another, Internet Explorer. They manipulated the market by threatening Compaq; in this case, however, Apple has not manipulated the market. They have not threatened anyone with the iPod in order to give iTunes, or the iTunes store, any advantages. They didn't strongarm WalMart into dropping their music store in order to receive iPods, they didn't strongarm Amazon into halting their DRM free music sales in order to sell iPods, they didn't strongarm Best Buy into stopping the sales of music in order to sell iPods.
So they bundle iTunes with iPods, how is that any different than Nintendo bundling Wii Play with their Wii? See, the point is that when Apple started bundling iTunes with the iPod, seven years ago, they weren't a monopoly. They "grew" their monopoly honestly, and in the same vein, they do the same thing everyone else is doing; the Zune comes free with their Zune Jukebox, Sonys come with SonicStage, Creative Zens come with MediaConnect (or whatever they are called), etc.
The big difference is that Apple ALSO provides iTunes free to both Windows and Macs, regardless of whether they own an iPod or iPhone. The Zune and Sony software is only available for Windows users, and for the longest time you could not download Creative's media player without paying a fee or buying a new jukebox!
So to reiterate; Apple hasn't done anything wrong other than be the most popular MP3 player, music store, and jukebox. As Amazon has proven, DRM free MP3 sales are quite possible, so anyone can offer a competing music store. As Windows Media Player, and iTunes too, has proven, bundling isn't an advantage (otherwise everyone would be using Windows Media Player and not iTunes!). Apple hasn't used one monopoly to create another, since they introduced all their products in a pre-monopoly state and made them popular through sheer force of effort.
As an example; look at AppleTV. Their iTunes and iPod monopoly hasn't done anything to help it, and they haven't done anything anticompetitive to give AppleTV a boost.
You can if it's DRM free, which is one of Apple's initiatives. It isn't like Apple is going to stop you from giving away your MP3s (MP4s technically), so long as you obey copyright law at the same time.
Coincidentally, it is copyright law that forbids you from selling your MP4, not Apple.
How do you reconcile your viewpoint with Apple's continued push for DRM-free music, which they and Amazon both happen to sell?
DRM free music encourages no lock-in and no barrier of entry; it's something people have dismissed for years as unrealistic, yet it's something Apple has somehow managed to pull off. On the flip side, licensing FairPlay to other music stores would have actively discouraged DRM-free music because FairPlay would have become the industry standard AND propped up iPod sales.
Yes, not licensing FairPlay is anticompetitive, but with the explicit (and in hindsight, correct) intention of promoting DRM free music as a benefit to consumers.
That is like arguing that a Toyota Prius (or any innovation or feature) is anticompetitive because the competition doesn't have it!
A consumer is forced to choose here because Apple is being competitive, not anticompetitive. Microsoft could, can, and should do this, and there is no barrier here. Sony can, could, and should do this too, and there is no barrier here. In these cases then none of Apple's actions have prevented competition, competitors from acting, or consumers from benefiting.
Unless you think it is wrong for Toyota to offer the Prius in a hybrid model without also offering a Prius in a non-hybrid model!
Which is identical to Microsoft maintaining their monopoly by making the next version of Direct3d Windows only, or Nintendo by only releasing Pokemon on the DS.
There is nothing wrong with an iPod only deal if they aren't actively hurting competitors; again, the example of raising iPod prices for people who own Creatives would be anticompetitive. So would denying sale of iPods to WalMart for supporting PlaysForSure or Zune, or to Amazon for running an MP3 store.
And this doesn't hurt consumers because consumers benefit from this deal (if they buy it). And consumers who don't buy it aren't hurt, at all. The absence of benefit is not harm.
All right, here is a list of common anticompetitive practices culled from Wiki:
* Dumping, where products are sold into a market at a low price which renders competition impossible, in order to wipe out competitors.
This might be dumping if Apple did not "pass on" the price to consumers. Given the initial up-front fee, however, the consumer appears to be paying fairly for this service.
* Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is 'tied' to purchase from a supplier.
This isn't exclusive dealing because the consumer can still buy music from Amazon, WalMart, Best Buy, etc and use it on the iPod. Likewise the music distributors are free to continue selling CDs and license to Amazon.
* 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
* Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia so all paid the same price for licenses. This is not happening.
* Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia to lock out a certain vendor. This is not happening.
* Dividing territories, e.g., you get everything west of the Mississippi, we take everything east
This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia for different regional markets. This is not happening.
* Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist to discourage economic entry into a market.
If we argue that Apple is a monopoly in MP3 players, this would only be applicable if they set the price of iPods low enough to prevent competitors; since this doesn't apply to the music store, nor is Apple charging too low a price, this doesn't apply.
* Product tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be bought together; this prevents consumer choice.
This would apply if the products weren't actually related; iPods play music, so purchasing a music subscription with your iPod actually makes sense. This also does not prevent consumer choice because consumers would have the option of not buying into the subscription.
* Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
Resellers are free to raise prices; lowering prices would lead to losses and that is not illegal nor prohibited by Apple either.
* Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market
This is what Microsoft practiced, using it's monopoly to prevent Netscape from gaining traction. Apple has not practiced that here, either.
So? That isn't illegal. The illegal part comes in when Apple acts in an anticompetitive manner (defined by antitrust law as harmful to consumers) using their monopoly. How is offering special deals to iPod owners anticompetitive? They aren't using their iPod monopoly to hurt consumers, in this case they use it to help them by giving them special bonuses.
They aren't hurting consumers with this offer.
They aren't hurting competitors with this offer.
They aren't hurting affiliates with this offer.
Therefore there is nothing illegally anticompetitive with this offer.
They would need to be using their iPod monopoly to hurt the consumer; like raising prices of iPods for users of other music stores, or denying access to stores like Amazon or Walmart for running music stores.
Neither has happened.
Read this. There is nothing wrong in having or acquiring a monopoly as long as you didn't do anything anticompetitive/illegal to acquire it or to have it.
In this case Apple has not done anything anticompetitive nor illegal. The only way I can see this being anticompetitive is if this offer disabled iPods or iPhones of users who were found to also own Creative or Sony products. In other words, using their monopoly on iPods to hurt consumers in order to hurt Creative or Sony.
There is nothing illegal with having a monopoly; it is, as I said earlier, only illegal when you engage in anticompetitive behavior when you have a monopoly.
In the first case, Apple may have a monopoly in MP3 players. However they have done nothing anticompetitive (again, the example where Microsoft threatened to terminate Windows licenses to Compaq because they bundled Netscape). Anticompetitive means it hurts Apple but it hurts their competitors more. Anticompetitive would be withholding iPods from WalMart until WalMart stops selling Sony.
Offering a subscription service to iPod owners is not anticompetitive because it does not prevent the competition from responding in like, nor from competing.
Microsoft terminating Windows licenses from Compaq is anticompetitive because it stops Compaq from bundling Netscape; stopping the competition by manipulating their monopoly in Windows licenses.
So, again, how is offering a subscription service for iPods and iPhones anticompetitive? It doesn't stop Amazon from offering DRM free MP3s, it doesn't stop Microsoft from releasing their own subscriptions, it doesn't stop Sony from partnering with Rhapsody for a similar service.
No it isn't. That's like arguing Microsoft is illegally anticompetitive for not releasing Office for Linux, Nintendo is anticompetitive for not releasing Metroid Prime for the XBox 360. In fact, that is like arguing "exclusive deals" are illegally anticompetitive.
As it stands, non iPod owners can still buy these songs from the iTunes store, on CD, or via other distributors, so until Apple commands something like 80% of the market, they can't be accused of illegally abusing their monopoly.
It is a good thing then that Apple is such a strong proponent of DRM-free music. Now we just have to wait for all the music in the iTunes store to be DRM free...
You forgot the anticompetitive part. You know, like how Microsoft threatened to terminate Windows licenses on Compaq for supporting Netscape and AOL?
Apple would need to be doing something anticompetitive with their monopoly... such as refusing to sell iPods to WalMart because they also sold Sony.
Er, I meant JavaScript. Oops.
Why do you think they won't release Darwin for the iPhone? The Darwin page has entries for the iPhone's webkit and java engine. I mean, the iPhone isn't even a year old and only has a beta SDK!
People said the exact same thing about the Intel version of Darwin, yet they did release the Intel versions of Darwin!
A more secure platform is better for the consumer; likewise, a better product (compared to the competition) is also better for the consumer.
Those two reasons are most of why the consumer continues to support Apple's "garbage" products. It helps that the competition is Windows Mobile, Motorola, Sony-Ericcson, and Nokia.
Ah, I misunderstood. How does releasing such a device help Apple? It surely doesn't have the margin nor volume to satisfy Apple's need for profit, short of selling it for $1k... And who would buy an iPod touch for $1k?
Uh, it's called the MacBook Air.
Explain why this is better for Apple than their existing strategy, which has sold over 4m iPhones already? Locking the phones has motivated a lot of hackers to discover exploits and security holes "for free" in a non malicious manner which Apple has promptly fixed.
An open strategy likely would not have discovered all of them nearly so quickly. Finally, all the "bricked" iPhones were unbricked at a later time...
Except for the fact that there have already been beneficial side effects of iPhone locking; the majority of which are security exploits that hackers discovered that Apple was able to fix. No such benefit occurs in media DRM.
Then there is the other point; what makes you think Apple 'unofficially' cares? The existence of hacked phones indicates some level of indifference.