Apple owns 80+% of the market for digital music players and online digital music. They don't allow any of the music they sell online to play on any other portable music player. They won't allow any other company selling music online with DRM to use Fairplay so that the music will play on the iPod. Guity. Case closed. Don't like it, than don't complain about Microsoft either.
"iTMS and the iPod are two separate products that work exclusively with each other.
Exactly. This is no more a monopoly than the XBox 360 + Windows Media Center is a monopoly. If the XBox was the only game console out there, I could understand. But it isn't, there's the PS2 or the GameCube."
Windows and Office are two separate products that work exclusively with each other.
Exactly. This is no more a monopoly than the MacOS + Macintosh harware is a monopoly. If the Macintosh was the only pc out there, I could understand. But it isn't, there's the Windows pc or the Linux PC
"MS was convicted as a monopoly, but it didn't seem to harm them. They had so much money it didn't matter. Nothing matters to them. Apple, however, will actually have to comply with government orders. This could be a very bad thing for people who enjoy Apple's products."
How is licensing fairplay going to harm their products? That alone should remedy the problem and satisfy the govt., conpetitors, and customers.
"All right, you can't play WMA tunes on other devices, but you CAN play MP3's on iPod, and you can use RealPlayer to manage it in addition to iTunes."
No one can sell legal music from the major labels in mp3 format, so that's a bullshit arguement. No one can make a music player that plays songs bought from iTMS. Apple is clearly leveraging their monopoly. If you think MS is guilty, then you should come to the same conclusion for Apple.
"I always thought the point of antitrust law was not to punish busineses for being successful, but for using "unfair" tactics to dominate a market. Apple weren't the first into online music, but they were the first to nail the formula."
Not licensing Fairplay is an unfair tactic for leveraging a monopoly. If you believe MS was guilty, than it's hypocritical to say Apple is not guilty of the same behavior. Microsoft did not get away clean, BTW. Breaking up the company was an unreasonable solution. Microsoft can no longer force OEM's into exclusive deals, which was the main point of the lawsuit. The whole browser integration thing was just stupid.
Ford may have a "monopoly" on Ford Trucks, but the iTunes "monopoly" would be a monopoly on... what, exactly? "
For does not have over 80 percent of the car market, and they don't have the power to design roads that no other car can drive on.
Apple has more than 80 percent of online music sales and portable music player markets. They've locked out competing producs by not licensing fairplay, creating an artificial barrier for competitors to enter the market. So if I have a music service, I can't sell to iPod users. If I build music players, I can't make them compatible with iTMS bought music. Microsoft did the same thing, and was determined to be a monopoly.
"There is no way to uniquely define "monopoly prices" or "monopoly behavior" except as a function of interference by someone with more power/authority than the company itself. Monopolies in a free market -- a market without such interference -- only exist in cases where the monopoly is more efficient than competition would be. If they become less efficient, a competitor will eventually arise to capitalize on their "monopoly profits" and choice will be restored. Only in a non-free market can an inefficient monopoly remain prominent."
Apple is in the same catagory as Microsoft. There's an artificial barrier to market entry constructed to keep out competition using closed source software, copyright, patents, etc. to keep the copetition from knowing how Fairplay works and how to make compatible devices or software.
"The way Apple runs its iPod business is the same way it runs it Macintosh unit: vertical integration. They want to be responsible for all aspects of the product from software to hardware, and in the case of the iPod, ensuring the content comes from the "correct" place to work with its unit. If we do not label the Macintosh hardware/software model as a "monopoly", then we should not label the iPod as such either."
Apple is a small player in the personal computer market, so Macintosh is not a monopoly. In the online digital music/portable music player market, they have an overwhelming marketshare, and their using technology to lock in the market by not allowing competitors to make compatible harware or software. They are doing exactly what MS did when they got sued. So if you believe MS is a monopoly in OS, you should believe Apple is a monopoly in online digital music/portable music player market.
"Except the big telcos own the lines... where are the little guys going to get lines?"
There is plenty of dark fiber that can be lit up. The equipment costs a fortune. But of course that's not the issue. It's easier to say that the telcom companies are being greedy than to actually look at what's going on.
Everytime I sign up for an unlimited service, I end up paying more than for a limited service. Let them charge per bit per mile and make it dirt cheap. Then companies that want to hog bandwidth with streaming video can pay a premium, while I can check my email and download patches for a lot less than my current DSL bill. Quit being a bunch of reactionaries, and pay your fair share. You'll probably find out you're being overcharged currently. Of course the overhead is a pain in the ass with this solution, but it's a simple example to illustrate my point, and to show you reactionaries that you're thinking about the problem the wrong way.
"Why can a restaurant offer its customers WiFi without additional charge, but a town is forbidden to offer the same service? That's schizophrene."
Because a restaurant can't arrest you for not paying for a service you don't want. You need to pay your taxes, however, so govt. services should be at a bare minimum that is impractical for private ventures. You don't have a right to take my money needlessly any more than you have a right to take away my free speech needlessly.
"Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD.... The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
I didn't know the burned so much fossil fuels in 800A.D.
"because if ya gotta buy a new box to run Vista, then why not just simply make the switch?"
Because I can get a machine for half the price that does the same thing if the Apple logo isn't on it. And now no one can argue that the Apple hardware is even better since it's the same PC-based stuff.
"This might actually work the other way than expected. With Microsoft standing behind, the "product-less" IP companies would love to sue for millions/billions of $$.
I won't be surprised if this actually ends up increasing the number of lawsuits."
Microsoft doesn't care about the lawsuits. They just want to sell their software. They've already been sued by the DOJ and EU. They're very experienced at dealing with this kind of stuff.
"So we'll get some relief from the patent nazis, but we'll pay for that relief with Linux being a reduced presence in the embedded OS market. It's a trade-off I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with."
This most likely has a lot more to do with Blackberry than Linux. They want to sell their software, and they don't want the PDA market killed by frivolous lawsuits.
"If you have access to a computer with all of your mp3's on iTunes or whatever digital music player, why chew up bandwidth to listen to someone else pick songs you don't really want to listen to?"
Because they introduce you to new music you haven't heard before and may actually like.
"I wonder how much the degree to which today's world is "connected" compared to the days and emergence of the Beatles and Stones (much less Beethoven, et. al.) contributes to the "lesser quality" of today's popular music? I have to think this is a significant factor, and an unfortunate one."
Not another person claiming music today isn't as good as the stuff I heard growing up. Give me a break. Bands aren't manufactured today any more than they were in the 60's.
"Just recently Microsoft opted not to release an automatic update related to a virus before the virus went active, which would indicate that, contrary to what comes out of the PR department, Microsoft's commitment to security is not significant."
"There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal "good" or "evil". We choose to define these things the way we do because of who we are. But to expect the rest of the world - all 6 billion of us - to toe the line with respect to values is ridiculous."
Read Ayn Rand. You need to define a rational morality that respects the individual if you want a free society. Religious dogma is not rational, but instead transcendent from some divine source, who cannot be proven to exist and can't be questioned. So religion in general is not a good source for objective morality.
Defacing a web site is an attack on free speech. No one has the right to break into someone else's server and change the content being distributed. No surprise that these criminals have no respect for free speech though, considering it is not something valued in Muslim culture. See here
"This is nothing more than a government conspiracy to restart the economy by forcing the entire telecom/internet community to upgrade their equipment to accomodate new services and increasing surveillance."
I know this is a joke, but it doesn't make economic sense. Burdening a company by forcing them to pay for equipment that expend resources on something that doesn't increase their productivity is a drain on the company. They now need to raise their prices to pay the added costs. Consumers who bear the price increases can't spend that money on other items. The economy at best stays the same, by probably suffers. If the govt. made a company dig holes every day and fill them the next day, the company would need to hire workers and buy shovels, so by your claim, this helps the economy. Since nothing productive is accomplished, however, it's just a waste of resources, and a drain on the economy.
"The achilles' heel of liberalism (disclaimer: I consider myself one) is the idea that we must tolerate intolerance. The idea that we must coddle the beliefs of others, even when those beliefs pose a threat to the continued existence of Western liberalism."
I agree. At the liberal university I atended, students wanted to pass rules banning hate speech, even admitting that the rules were at odds with the 1st amendment. The danger of such a system is that whoever is making the rules gets to decide what constitutes hate speech. Just imagine if G. W. Bush had the power to decide what constitutes hate speech. Censoring ideas, even if they seem to be bad ideas, is a serious limitation on freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple owns 80+% of the market for digital music players and online digital music. They don't allow any of the music they sell online to play on any other portable music player. They won't allow any other company selling music online with DRM to use Fairplay so that the music will play on the iPod. Guity. Case closed. Don't like it, than don't complain about Microsoft either.
If Apple licensed Fairplay, everyone would be satisfied, and antitrust concerns would go away.
"Note to everyone: Don't become successful, or we will seek to destroy you. Signed: unproductive, greedy, envious socialists."
Where were you when Microsoft was getting sued?
"iTMS and the iPod are two separate products that work exclusively with each other.
Exactly. This is no more a monopoly than the XBox 360 + Windows Media Center is a monopoly. If the XBox was the only game console out there, I could understand. But it isn't, there's the PS2 or the GameCube."
Windows and Office are two separate products that work exclusively with each other.
Exactly. This is no more a monopoly than the MacOS + Macintosh harware is a monopoly. If the Macintosh was the only pc out there, I could understand. But it isn't, there's the Windows pc or the Linux PC
Your arguement is what's idioitic
"MS was convicted as a monopoly, but it didn't seem to harm them. They had so much money it didn't matter. Nothing matters to them. Apple, however, will actually have to comply with government orders. This could be a very bad thing for people who enjoy Apple's products."
How is licensing fairplay going to harm their products? That alone should remedy the problem and satisfy the govt., conpetitors, and customers.
"All right, you can't play WMA tunes on other devices, but you CAN play MP3's on iPod, and you can use RealPlayer to manage it in addition to iTunes."
No one can sell legal music from the major labels in mp3 format, so that's a bullshit arguement. No one can make a music player that plays songs bought from iTMS. Apple is clearly leveraging their monopoly. If you think MS is guilty, then you should come to the same conclusion for Apple.
"I always thought the point of antitrust law was not to punish busineses for being successful, but for using "unfair" tactics to dominate a market. Apple weren't the first into online music, but they were the first to nail the formula."
Not licensing Fairplay is an unfair tactic for leveraging a monopoly. If you believe MS was guilty, than it's hypocritical to say Apple is not guilty of the same behavior. Microsoft did not get away clean, BTW. Breaking up the company was an unreasonable solution. Microsoft can no longer force OEM's into exclusive deals, which was the main point of the lawsuit. The whole browser integration thing was just stupid.
"t's worse than that.
Ford may have a "monopoly" on Ford Trucks, but the iTunes "monopoly" would be a monopoly on... what, exactly?
"
For does not have over 80 percent of the car market, and they don't have the power to design roads that no other car can drive on.
Apple has more than 80 percent of online music sales and portable music player markets. They've locked out competing producs by not licensing fairplay, creating an artificial barrier for competitors to enter the market. So if I have a music service, I can't sell to iPod users. If I build music players, I can't make them compatible with iTMS bought music. Microsoft did the same thing, and was determined to be a monopoly.
"There is no way to uniquely define "monopoly prices" or "monopoly behavior" except as a function of interference by someone with more power/authority than the company itself. Monopolies in a free market -- a market without such interference -- only exist in cases where the monopoly is more efficient than competition would be. If they become less efficient, a competitor will eventually arise to capitalize on their "monopoly profits" and choice will be restored. Only in a non-free market can an inefficient monopoly remain prominent."
Apple is in the same catagory as Microsoft. There's an artificial barrier to market entry constructed to keep out competition using closed source software, copyright, patents, etc. to keep the copetition from knowing how Fairplay works and how to make compatible devices or software.
"The way Apple runs its iPod business is the same way it runs it Macintosh unit: vertical integration. They want to be responsible for all aspects of the product from software to hardware, and in the case of the iPod, ensuring the content comes from the "correct" place to work with its unit. If we do not label the Macintosh hardware/software model as a "monopoly", then we should not label the iPod as such either."
Apple is a small player in the personal computer market, so Macintosh is not a monopoly. In the online digital music/portable music player market, they have an overwhelming marketshare, and their using technology to lock in the market by not allowing competitors to make compatible harware or software. They are doing exactly what MS did when they got sued. So if you believe MS is a monopoly in OS, you should believe Apple is a monopoly in online digital music/portable music player market.
"Except the big telcos own the lines... where are the little guys going to get lines?"
There is plenty of dark fiber that can be lit up. The equipment costs a fortune. But of course that's not the issue. It's easier to say that the telcom companies are being greedy than to actually look at what's going on.
Everytime I sign up for an unlimited service, I end up paying more than for a limited service. Let them charge per bit per mile and make it dirt cheap. Then companies that want to hog bandwidth with streaming video can pay a premium, while I can check my email and download patches for a lot less than my current DSL bill. Quit being a bunch of reactionaries, and pay your fair share. You'll probably find out you're being overcharged currently. Of course the overhead is a pain in the ass with this solution, but it's a simple example to illustrate my point, and to show you reactionaries that you're thinking about the problem the wrong way.
"Why can a restaurant offer its customers WiFi without additional charge, but a town is forbidden to offer the same service? That's schizophrene."
Because a restaurant can't arrest you for not paying for a service you don't want. You need to pay your taxes, however, so govt. services should be at a bare minimum that is impractical for private ventures. You don't have a right to take my money needlessly any more than you have a right to take away my free speech needlessly.
"Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD. ... The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
I didn't know the burned so much fossil fuels in 800A.D.
"because if ya gotta buy a new box to run Vista, then why not just simply make the switch?"
Because I can get a machine for half the price that does the same thing if the Apple logo isn't on it. And now no one can argue that the Apple hardware is even better since it's the same PC-based stuff.
birds more likely to get avian flu than fish.
"This might actually work the other way than expected. With Microsoft standing behind, the "product-less" IP companies would love to sue for millions/billions of $$.
I won't be surprised if this actually ends up increasing the number of lawsuits."
Microsoft doesn't care about the lawsuits. They just want to sell their software. They've already been sued by the DOJ and EU. They're very experienced at dealing with this kind of stuff.
"So we'll get some relief from the patent nazis, but we'll pay for that relief with Linux being a reduced presence in the embedded OS market. It's a trade-off I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with."
This most likely has a lot more to do with Blackberry than Linux. They want to sell their software, and they don't want the PDA market killed by frivolous lawsuits.
"If you have access to a computer with all of your mp3's on iTunes or whatever digital music player, why chew up bandwidth to listen to someone else pick songs you don't really want to listen to?"
Because they introduce you to new music you haven't heard before and may actually like.
"I wonder how much the degree to which today's world is "connected" compared to the days and emergence of the Beatles and Stones (much less Beethoven, et. al.) contributes to the "lesser quality" of today's popular music? I have to think this is a significant factor, and an unfortunate one."
Not another person claiming music today isn't as good as the stuff I heard growing up. Give me a break. Bands aren't manufactured today any more than they were in the 60's.
"Just recently Microsoft opted not to release an automatic update related to a virus before the virus went active, which would indicate that, contrary to what comes out of the PR department, Microsoft's commitment to security is not significant."
Hmmm, how did that work out?
"There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal "good" or "evil". We choose to define these things the way we do because of who we are. But to expect the rest of the world - all 6 billion of us - to toe the line with respect to values is ridiculous."
Read Ayn Rand. You need to define a rational morality that respects the individual if you want a free society. Religious dogma is not rational, but instead transcendent from some divine source, who cannot be proven to exist and can't be questioned. So religion in general is not a good source for objective morality.
Defacing a web site is an attack on free speech. No one has the right to break into someone else's server and change
the content being distributed. No surprise that these criminals have no respect for free speech though,
considering it is not something valued in Muslim culture.
See here
"This is nothing more than a government conspiracy to restart the economy by forcing the entire telecom/internet community to upgrade their equipment to accomodate new services and increasing surveillance."
I know this is a joke, but it doesn't make economic sense. Burdening a company by forcing them to pay for equipment that expend resources on something that doesn't increase their productivity is a drain on the company. They now need to raise their prices to pay the added costs. Consumers who bear the price increases can't spend that money on other items. The economy at best stays the same, by probably suffers. If the govt. made a company dig holes every day and fill them the next day, the company would need to hire workers and buy shovels, so by your claim, this helps the economy. Since nothing productive is accomplished, however, it's just a waste of resources, and a drain on the economy.
"The achilles' heel of liberalism (disclaimer: I consider myself one) is the idea that we must tolerate intolerance. The idea that we must coddle the beliefs of others, even when those beliefs pose a threat to the continued existence of Western liberalism."
I agree. At the liberal university I atended, students wanted to pass rules banning hate speech, even admitting that the rules were at odds with the 1st amendment. The danger of such a system is that whoever is making the rules gets to decide what constitutes hate speech. Just imagine if G. W. Bush had the power to decide what constitutes hate speech. Censoring ideas, even if they seem to be bad ideas, is a serious limitation on freedom.