PDA

View Full Version : Northern California Judge Gives Green Light to Monopolizatio...


MacBytes
Feb 8, 2006, 11:54 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Northern California Judge Gives Green Light to Monopolization Suit Against Apple (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060209005433)
Description:: Judge James Ware, of the U.S. District Court of Northern California, has found the plaintiff, Thomas Slattery, as having "met all requirements for asserting [Apple's iTunes + iPod] tying claim... noting that the complaint alleges Apple has an 80 percent share of the market for legal digital music files and more than 90 percent of the market for portable hard-drive digital music players." Moreover, Judge Ware has given the green light to Slattery to proceed with his monopolization claim under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

dornoforpyros
Feb 8, 2006, 11:56 PM
I don't understand the US legal system at all

Nermal
Feb 9, 2006, 12:32 AM
Good on them, hopefully we'll see more competition and therefore lower prices :)

QCassidy352
Feb 9, 2006, 12:40 AM
this is so stupid. Monopoly is bad when a company (e.g. Microsoft) exerts unfair pressure on competitors and basically dominates the market not due to having better products but due to manipulating the supply, slashing profits below profitable levels, etc.

if other companies can't compete not because of unfair business practices but because their products and business models SUCK then monopoly is a good thing. Apple is not doing anything that would prevent another mp3 player or music service from breaking in if it was any good - i mean they're going against Sony, Google, Napster, and other giants of the tech industry, not exactly people you can push around. The reason they aren't breaking apple's grip on the market is because their goods aren't as good. That's (real) capitalism.

digitdean
Feb 9, 2006, 01:00 AM
So much for survival of the fittest.

California
Feb 9, 2006, 01:19 AM
Good on them, hopefully we'll see more competition and therefore lower prices :)

Hey. What are you talking about "lower prices?"

On what?

99 cent songs?

69 USD iPods? Your statement is nuts.

Slattery WORKED FOR MICROSOFT AS A LAWYER. THIS IS A SET UP. THE JUDGE MUST BE ON THE M$ TAKE.

Nermal
Feb 9, 2006, 01:39 AM
Yep, lower prices. I have to pay $26.95 for a CD regardless of whether I want all the songs or not. If I had a WMA-based player, I'd be able to buy just the tracks I want for $1.69 each. But since I have an iPod, I'm forced to buy the entire CD since Apple are refusing to add WMA support, and are also refusing to license out Fairplay. On the other hand, if the system was "opened", then I'd be able to get just the songs I want, at a better price.

chewbaccapits
Feb 9, 2006, 02:42 AM
Why not buy your crappy WMA songs and convert them into mp3s? And BTW, you have to pay 26 dollars for a CD? A. what band is worth 26 dollars a cd and B. no one is forcing you to buy anything.....You must have known what format was played on the iPod or else you did not do your DD.....Also, isn't this the same as buying a PS2 system and then complaining it cannot run your future purchases of XBOX games...This lawsuit is ass...

svenr
Feb 9, 2006, 03:13 AM
And BTW, you have to pay 26 dollars for a CD? A. what band is worth 26 dollars a cd ...
If you look at "Location:" you'll notice this guy/gal is from New Zealand.
1 NZD = 0.68 USD
26 NZD = 17.64 USD
Not the whole world calculates with US dollars...

angelneo
Feb 9, 2006, 04:00 AM
I thought this is the purpose of DRM? to prevent others from playing on unauthorised equipments? If Apple own the production of the iPod and the iTunes store, why can't they create a unique synergy between these 2?

bigandy
Feb 9, 2006, 06:27 AM
If you look at "Location:" you'll notice this guy/gal is from New Zealand.
1 NZD = 0.68 USD
26 NZD = 17.64 USD
Not the whole world calculates with US dollars...

a bunch of american students came to my university here in scotland, the other day, for the semester, and asked why our currency, the pound, wasn't called dollars, like in england.

:eek:

people should remember that thinking before they speak is not a bad idea! ;)

gnasher729
Feb 9, 2006, 07:54 AM
If you look at "Location:" you'll notice this guy/gal is from New Zealand.
1 NZD = 0.68 USD
26 NZD = 17.64 USD
Not the whole world calculates with US dollars...

A good reason to _always_ include the country when you use dollars. It avoids confusion.

JtheLemur
Feb 9, 2006, 08:02 AM
I have to pay $26.95 for a CD regardless of whether I want all the songs or not. If I had a WMA-based player, I'd be able to buy just the tracks I want for $1.69 each. But since I have an iPod, I'm forced to buy the entire CD since Apple are refusing to add WMA support, and are also refusing to license out Fairplay. On the other hand, if the system was "opened", then I'd be able to get just the songs I want, at a better price.

I'd really like to know what CD this is. I buy a lot of music from the iTMS, and I've never run into a CD that required me to buy the whole thing. Besides, I'm pretty sure "they" stated a while back that this was not Apple's choice, but the choice of the artist's label.

As an aside, no one is *forcing* you to do anything. The iTMS is only one of many ways to acquire music. You could always wait for a local store to put the CD on sale and buy it for cheaper than the current price, for example.

gnasher729
Feb 9, 2006, 08:15 AM
Having a monopoly is in itself not bad and not illegal. Using a monopoly to get unfair advantages and limit competition in other areas is illegal.

However, Apple doesn't have a monopoly at all. Not only are there plenty of competitors, these competitors are also highly successful (if I gave you sales statistics about portable music players with Apple players not mentioned anywhere, you would see that other players actually have considerable growth, just not anywhere near Apple's growth).

Most important, the customer has unlimited choice of what to buy. If you want to listen to Britney Spears on a portable music player, you are absolutely free to buy an iPod and a CD and download the CD to the iPod, or buy a Creative player and a CD and download the CD to the Zen, or buy an iPod and download the song from iTunes Music Store, or buy a Creative player and download the song from Napster. You are absolutely free to choose. The fact that iPod and iTMS sell more doesn't affect you in any way if you choose to use different products.

Now if Apple told a music company that they can't sell songs on iTMS if they sell them on Napster, or if Microsoft told you that Office stops working if you connect an iPod to your computer instead of a Microsoft approved music player, _that_ would be a case of monopoly abuse. They both don't do that.

Photorun
Feb 9, 2006, 08:21 AM
Um, okay, so Apple has a monopoly because nobody has come out with a better player or music system though there has been actually a LOT of competition but Microsoft has used unethical contracts with peecee manufactures and strongarm tactics in it's OS but it's NOT a monopoly.

Say what?!?

Photorun
Feb 9, 2006, 08:23 AM
Yep, lower prices. I have to pay $26.95 for a CD regardless of whether I want all the songs or not. If I had a WMA-based player, I'd be able to buy just the tracks I want for $1.69 each. But since I have an iPod, I'm forced to buy the entire CD since Apple are refusing to add WMA support, and are also refusing to license out Fairplay. On the other hand, if the system was "opened", then I'd be able to get just the songs I want, at a better price.

Dude, go get a Dull and a Dull DJ, go through Rhapsody or Napster and stop yer freakin' whining! You have options, if you don't like them that's you're effin' problem.

Yvan256
Feb 9, 2006, 08:32 AM
If you look at "Location:" you'll notice this guy/gal is from New Zealand.
1 NZD = 0.68 USD
26 NZD = 17.64 USD
Not the whole world calculates with US dollars...

Not, but there's quite a lot of countries that uses "$"...

Also, I don't get his arguments... The same could be said of people without ANY MP3 player. They're "forced" to buy complete CDs just like him... :confused:

Yvan256
Feb 9, 2006, 08:34 AM
Um, okay, so Apple has a monopoly because nobody has come out with a better player or music system though there has been actually a LOT of competition but Microsoft has used unethical contracts with peecee manufactures and strongarm tactics in it's OS but it's NOT a monopoly.

Say what?!?

"Welcome to the USA, where crooks win and good guys lose."? :confused:

AlmostThere
Feb 9, 2006, 08:49 AM
Having a monopoly is in itself not bad and not illegal. Using a monopoly to get unfair advantages and limit competition in other areas is illegal.


This what the complaints are about. Apple has a near monopoly in the digital music player market. They use this to prevent competition in the online music sales market.

At the risk of duplicating my post from the other thread, swap iPod for Windows and iTMS for office suite or media player.

If MS changed Windows every time someone tried to release a competitor to MS Office or Window's Media Player so that those products broke or became otherwise unusable, this would likely be deemed an abuse of their (near) monopoly in the OS market.

Where MS is not a major player, say in video editing software, they do not break competing products.

Apple do not sell CDs, it is not a market in which they are competing and the differences between online and CD music have been made many times.

They do have an online music store, offering songs for the iPod. When a competitor came along (Real) who allowed people to buy online from another store and playback on their iPod, they used their control over the iPod to stamp it out.

Given variations, such as the size of the iPod market share and technologies such as DRM, this is far from clear cut but subjectively Apple have shown a willingness to utilise the dominance of their music player to cut out competition in another area.

SiliconAddict
Feb 9, 2006, 08:56 AM
a bunch of american students came to my university here in scotland, the other day, for the semester, and asked why our currency, the pound, wasn't called dollars, like in england.

:eek:

people should remember that thinking before they speak is not a bad idea! ;)


:eek: *sighs* On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for their stupidity. Morons. :rolleyes:

SiliconAddict
Feb 9, 2006, 08:59 AM
"Welcome to the USA, where crooks win and good guys lose."? :confused:


That pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Dude, go get a Dull a
nd a Dull DJ, go through Rhapsody or Napster and stop yer freakin' whining! You have options, if you don't like them that's you're effin' problem.

The DJ has been discontinued. The smaller ditty is till available. But the point stands.

Yvan256
Feb 9, 2006, 09:05 AM
They do have an online music store, offering songs for the iPod. When a competitor came along (Real) who allowed people to buy online from another store and playback on their iPod, they used their control over the iPod to stamp it out.

Except that Real didn't "compete", they hacked their way in.

Do you think Sony wouldn't react if Microsoft were to include a PS1 and PS2 emulator in the Xbox360?

applebum
Feb 9, 2006, 09:12 AM
This what the complaints are about. Apple has a near monopoly in the digital music player market. They use this to prevent competition in the online music sales market.

At the risk of duplicating my post from the other thread, swap iPod for Windows and iTMS for office suite or media player.

If MS changed Windows every time someone tried to release a competitor to MS Office or Window's Media Player so that those products broke or became otherwise unusable, this would likely be deemed an abuse of their (near) monopoly in the OS market.

Where MS is not a major player, say in video editing software, they do not break competing products.

Apple do not sell CDs, it is not a market in which they are competing and the differences between online and CD music have been made many times.

They do have an online music store, offering songs for the iPod. When a competitor came along (Real) who allowed people to buy online from another store and playback on their iPod, they used their control over the iPod to stamp it out.

Given variations, such as the size of the iPod market share and technologies such as DRM, this is far from clear cut but subjectively Apple have shown a willingness to utilise the dominance of their music player to cut out competition in another area.

I swear, consumers are getting far too whiney and for some reason feel they are entitled to everything they want.

What ever happened to weighing the pros and cons of a product and making a decision based on that? Want an MP3 player...well the iPod looks the best and is easy to use, but you can only use iTunes and music stores without DRM. The Creative doesn't look as good, but there are at least 4 stores I can use, and I can even rent music if I want. This is how a consumer should function. Plenty of options available, and plenty of competition.

But nooooo...I want an iPod despite its limitations and I will sue Apple to force them to make the iPod the way I want it. Blpppppppp (big rasberry).

Craziness.

SiliconAddict
Feb 9, 2006, 09:20 AM
This is going to be an easy case by the way.
Exhibit A.... www.musicmatch.com
Exhibit B.... www.urge.com
Exhibit C.... www.napster.com
Exhibit D.... www.playsforsure.com
Exhibit E....www.walmart.com/music_downloads/introToServices.do
Exhibit F.... Zen Micro Photo (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=112#detailssection)
Exhibit G....Gmini XS100 (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=139)
Exhibit H....Zen Namo (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=122)
Exhibit I....Dell Ditty (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=138)
Exhibit J....Gateway Photo Jukebox (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=96)
Exhibit K....iRiver T30 (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=107)

Just flood the courtroom with examples. There is nothing wrong with a monopoly. (Even if Apple had one which they clearly do not.) Its what you DO with a monopoly is when the government gets involved. This is clearly a dumb*** judge who doesn't know an iPod from a banana or a music store from a porn site.

People have a choice. They just aren't happy with the choice Apple has offered them. Holy [bleep] If that is a crime then I want to sue Toyota for not integrating an iPod dock into their Prius. Its the most popular selling hybrid electric. Even though there are others that have this feature I want it in the Prius so I'm going to sue them.
Idiots. :mad:

AlmostThere
Feb 9, 2006, 10:00 AM
I swear, consumers are getting far too whiney and for some reason feel they are entitled to everything they want.

What ever happened to weighing the pros and cons of a product and making a decision based on that? Want an MP3 player...well the iPod looks the best and is easy to use, but you can only use iTunes and music stores without DRM. The Creative doesn't look as good, but there are at least 4 stores I can use, and I can even rent music if I want. This is how a consumer should function. Plenty of options available, and plenty of competition.

But nooooo...I want an iPod despite its limitations and I will sue Apple to force them to make the iPod the way I want it. Blpppppppp (big rasberry).

Craziness.

Sorry, I don't quite understand the relevance. Are you saying that Apple should be allowed to use the dominance of the iPod to block competition to iTMS? Is iTMS not good enough to stand out amongst other online stores?

Historically, music and playback device have been distinct. There have been a number of different markets. This is how a cons^H^H^H store should function. Plenty of options available, and plenty of competition.
out competitors in the music store market.

gwangung
Feb 9, 2006, 10:14 AM
Sorry, I don't quite understand the relevance. Are you saying that Apple should be allowed to use the dominance of the iPod to block competition to iTMS? Is iTMS not good enough to stand out amongst other online stores?

Historically, music and playback device have been distinct. There have been a number of different markets. This is how a cons^H^H^H store should function. Plenty of options available, and plenty of competition.
out competitors in the music store market.

Yes, you DON'T understand the relevance.

Historically, music and playback devices have been distinct. However, if a business can create a synergy by linking the two, NOTHING is stopping other businesses from creating similar synergies.

You're mistaking an inability to compete with the use of monopoly power to prevent the ability to compete. Apple is doing NOTHING to prevent competition; all their behavior is focussed on their own products. None of their actions are focussed on other businesses behaviors.

Keynoteuser
Feb 9, 2006, 10:22 AM
The sad thing here is that we have a popular brand and format, and a bunch of unpopular brands and oh yeah, windows media, which is a closed format too. So what do they want Apple to do? Open up their store to crappy players, or open up their player to WMA? If they open it to WMA, doesn't Apple have to PAY Microsoft for that right?

I mean, Apple figured out a great system, and it became popular because it just plain works. Everyone elses systems fall apart and so they have to sue Apple...most likely in an attempt to break Apple's great system instead of making one that works.

Yeah, welcome to America...that sounds about right (this coming from an American).

iMeowbot
Feb 9, 2006, 10:28 AM
You're mistaking an inability to compete with the use of monopoly power to prevent the ability to compete. Apple is doing NOTHING to prevent competition; all their behavior is focussed on their own products. None of their actions are focussed on other businesses behaviors.
Apple badly hurt their ability to claim they weren't preventing competition with this threat (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/29/technology/apple_real/) that they carried out (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041214-4466.html). Apple management should have kept their mouths shut, it would be much simpler to brush this aside. The conspicuous absence of any DMCA-related action doesn't help the Apple case either, it bolsters the argument that Real did nothing wrong.

Timepass
Feb 9, 2006, 10:59 AM
This is going to be an easy case by the way.
Exhibit A.... www.musicmatch.com
Exhibit B.... www.urge.com
Exhibit C.... www.napster.com
Exhibit D.... www.playsforsure.com
Exhibit E....www.walmart.com/music_downloads/introToServices.do
Exhibit F.... Zen Micro Photo (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=112#detailssection)
Exhibit G....Gmini XS100 (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=139)
Exhibit H....Zen Namo (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=122)
Exhibit I....Dell Ditty (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=138)
Exhibit J....Gateway Photo Jukebox (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=96)
Exhibit K....iRiver T30 (http://www.playsforsure.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=107)

Just flood the courtroom with examples. There is nothing wrong with a monopoly. (Even if Apple had one which they clearly do not.) Its what you DO with a monopoly is when the government gets involved. This is clearly a dumb*** judge who doesn't know an iPod from a banana or a music store from a porn site.

People have a choice. They just aren't happy with the choice Apple has offered them. Holy [bleep] If that is a crime then I want to sue Toyota for not integrating an iPod dock into their Prius. Its the most popular selling hybrid electric. Even though there are others that have this feature I want it in the Prius so I'm going to sue them.
Idiots. :mad:


hate to burst that bubble you think you made but it does not matter how many competing products there are. All that matters is market share and lets face it of the hard drive base MP3 players the iPod is near 80% and of the online digital music store apples at 90% market share. By your argument M$ windows is not a monopoly. There are tons of other OSs out there that can be used instead
OSX
Linux (many distos)
Unix
Palm OS
and so on

Or we can look at Word processors other than M$ Word or works
Open Office
Apple works
notepad
text editor
Word perfect
Neo Office
and so on.

The end argument is all based on market share. You can point at tons of other choices but they all fall short when you point out raw market share. All it means is it more competions for the same very small slice of the pie.

So online music stores other than iTMS are all fighting for the 10% that apple does not control.

Also apple past with Real is going to come back to bit then in the rear this time because it proof apple is willing to change there product to prevent competion

gwangung
Feb 9, 2006, 11:17 AM
Apple badly hurt their ability to claim they weren't preventing competition with this threat (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/29/technology/apple_real/) that they carried out (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041214-4466.html). Apple management should have kept their mouths shut, it would be much simpler to brush this aside. The conspicuous absence of any DMCA-related action doesn't help the Apple case either, it bolsters the argument that Real did nothing wrong.

Actually, this does not hurt their case that much. While it's true that their statements does not help their case, Apple can make the real case that this is all internal and specific for their products (particularly if they bring up the problems of support for their tightly integrated product if they allow outside parties to hack into it).

gwangung
Feb 9, 2006, 11:26 AM
hate to burst that bubble you think you made but it does not matter how many competing products there are. All that matters is market share

Hate to burst YOUR bubble, but what matters is market share AND raising barriers to competition. Changing their product internally is not raising a barrier to competition; changing their product to prevent Real from using a component of their product is not raising a barrier to competition either. Making a deal with the RIAA to make it harder for other entities to make deals IS raising a barrier

People are confusing the inability to compete with barriers to compete. They are not the same.

Competitors have to bring a better product to the market to compete. An illegal monopolization would have to entail Apple raising a barrier to prevent a better product from entering the market. Having a large market share is not a barrier. Changing their own product to prevent others from profiting from that product is not a barrier (for starters, how does one differentiate that from changing the coding to fix a bug?).

iMeowbot
Feb 9, 2006, 11:35 AM
Actually, this does not hurt their case that much. While it's true that their statements does not help their case, Apple can make the real case that this is all internal and specific for their products (particularly if they bring up the problems of support for their tightly integrated product if they allow outside parties to hack into it).
That's the same argument Microsoft used with the Windows tying complaints, and it got them nowhere. Apple will further need to come up with a convincing argument why there was a technical need to break the DRM protocol in some players that were already shipping, but not all of them.

AlmostThere
Feb 9, 2006, 11:38 AM
Yes, you DON'T understand the relevance.

Historically, music and playback devices have been distinct. However, if a business can create a synergy by linking the two, NOTHING is stopping other businesses from creating similar synergies.

You're mistaking an inability to compete with the use of monopoly power to prevent the ability to compete. Apple is doing NOTHING to prevent competition; all their behavior is focussed on their own products. None of their actions are focussed on other businesses behaviors.

So you agree that MS should be able to create a synergy between Office and Windows, Internet Explorer and Windows or WMP and Windows.

After all, if you write a web browser you can also create your own operating system!

Hate to burst YOUR bubble, but what matters is market share AND raising barriers to competition. Changing their product internally is not raising a barrier to competition; changing their product to prevent Real from using a component of their product is not raising a barrier to competition either.
And if MS change components of Windows internally, then that's not raising a barrier to competition? If it breaks other browsers, breaks other media players or breaks other word processors - hey, that's just fair competition.

SiliconAddict
Feb 9, 2006, 12:19 PM
hate to burst that bubble you think you made but it does not matter how many competing products there are. All that matters is market share and lets face it of the hard drive base MP3 players the iPod is near 80% and of the online digital music store apples at 90% market share. By your argument M$ windows is not a monopoly.

Hate to burst your blimp and make it go up in flames but there is nothing illegal about monopolies. The only thing the government cares about is anticompetitive behavior which isn’t something Apple has done. In point of fact all they have done is taken their ball home so no one else case can play with their stuff. This in no way shape or form harms the above referenced devices or services other then they are on their own to make a good store and or device. My point stands.

What has made the DoJ come down on MS like a pile of cinder blocks in the past has been how they use their monopoly for anticompetitive purposes. use IE as your default browser or you don't get a nice juice discount on Windows, etc. The only thing Apple has done that is even close to this is charge people for the made for iPod logo thing and that isn’t what this is about.

Nermal
Feb 9, 2006, 12:48 PM
I'd really like to know what CD this is. I buy a lot of music from the iTMS, and I've never run into a CD that required me to buy the whole thing.

I never mentioned iTMS, I'm talking about CDs. iTMS doesn't exist here, but there are several shops with WMAs (eg. Digirama).

As for the people who don't understand my argument, it's simple. If Apple were forced to open up their system, then online shops such as Digirama would be able to sell AACs, presumably for $1.69 each or $15.99 per album, the same price as they do now. Cheaper prices for essentially the same music? It's not rocket science.

pgwalsh
Feb 9, 2006, 01:30 PM
No one forces you to purchase from iTunes. I purchase music from other places and pay a little more, but I also get higher bit rate MP3's. I also get a selection of music that Apple doesn't carry. I still have to use iTunes to sync to my iPod, but not if I'm on Linux. I don't think this person will win.

Timepass
Feb 9, 2006, 01:40 PM
Hate to burst your blimp and make it go up in flames but there is nothing illegal about monopolies. The only thing the government cares about is anticompetitive behavior which isn’t something Apple has done. In point of fact all they have done is taken their ball home so no one else case can play with their stuff. This in no way shape or form harms the above referenced devices or services other then they are on their own to make a good store and or device. My point stands.

What has made the DoJ come down on MS like a pile of cinder blocks in the past has been how they use their monopoly for anticompetitive purposes. use IE as your default browser or you don't get a nice juice discount on Windows, etc. The only thing Apple has done that is even close to this is charge people for the made for iPod logo thing and that isn’t what this is about.


Never said that it was. But the argument made agaist apple is the fact that the music from the iTMS will only play on the iPod. And the iPOD will only play music from the iTMS. They are saying the combonation of 2 products that have over 80% of there respect market share locking out all the others is what puts it in legel trouble. They are asking for the iPOD to play music from other music stores other than iTMS and for stuff from the iTMS to play on players other than the iPOD. Right now the set up hurts the compition on both sides.

Oooo I think my bubble still standing. Yours is gone

applebum
Feb 9, 2006, 02:22 PM
Never said that it was. But the argument made agaist apple is the fact that the music from the iTMS will only play on the iPod. And the iPOD will only play music from the iTMS. They are saying the combonation of 2 products that have over 80% of there respect market share locking out all the others is what puts it in legel trouble. They are asking for the iPOD to play music from other music stores other than iTMS and for stuff from the iTMS to play on players other than the iPOD. Right now the set up hurts the compition on both sides.

Oooo I think my bubble still standing. Yours is gone

Apparently there are bubbles on either side, and unfortunately, no one has darts sharp enough to pop the others bubbles.

That being said, I am trying to figure out who actually is being hurt by Apple's practices. Here are my thoughts:

Consumer side - A) if you want a player other than an iPod, you are in a great position. You have several models to choose from, most of which have more features than the iPod and will also be a little cheaper. Then you have at least 5 online stores to buy music from - many times cheaper than ITMS. Between all those stores, your music content will not suffer. Video content may suffer as the ITMS has the best selection, but this market is new and more selection will be available in due time. This consumer suffers very little. B) if you have an iPod, your online store selection is ITMS, and any stores that have no DRM. You are OK in video content (see above). While this consumer is limited in selection, if you bought your iPod in the last 3 years, you have known this would be the case - your choice. This consumer probably has the most reason to want Apple to lose the case.

Companies - obviously the other stores truly believe that if the iPod could just play their music, then they would be able to compete with ITMS. So they have obvious reason to want Apple to lose. I think these companies are wrong, but no company wants to believe that their product is inferior.

Best case - Apple wins the case.
Next best - Apple sees it will lose and decides to license Fairplay to any store that wants it. We would truly see which of these stores really want to get music on the iPod
Worst case - Apple loses the case and is forced to open up the iPod to WMA with DRM and is forced to sell WMA with DRM from ITMS.

Those of you hoping that DRM goes away - give it up!

AJ Muni
Feb 9, 2006, 02:59 PM
This is a bunch of bulls**t...geez i hate haters....

Timepass
Feb 9, 2006, 04:03 PM
Best case - Apple wins the case.
Next best - Apple sees it will lose and decides to license Fairplay to any store that wants it. We would truly see which of these stores really want to get music on the iPod
Worst case - Apple loses the case and is forced to open up the iPod to WMA with DRM and is forced to sell WMA with DRM from ITMS.

Those of you hoping that DRM goes away - give it up!

From an apple Zelot stand point well the answer is clear.....
From a consumer stand point apple loosing is a good thing because it means more choices for us.
1st the iPod would be force to be able to play DRM from the other music stores. Very easy to implement since it is all software side.
2nd song from the iTMS will be able to play on other players. Good thing for us again since now we can use the largest music store with any players and it no longer a factor in desided on an mp3 player.
Worst case is apple wins to continue being refusing to lincences out Fairplay and it mean that WMA will be come the DRM standard and then the iPod and iTMS will be forced over to it. I want an industry standard DRM to come out and it going to happen some time. The longer apple refuses to try to make Fairplay the standard the greater chance it will be come WMA and if and when that happens we all loose.

Right now I dont see how apple loosing this case could be bad for consumers. The only person it will sting will be apple and only at first. After that they will gain even more power since now both sides can grow larger.

iTunes does not have to be a nice in syncing with the other players out that. that not the case. Just iTMS song need to be able to play on the other players. Personally I would mine seeing the iPod play nice with windows media player since that system looks promising. Still would use the iTunes personally but I could see people liking it better. And yes I know a lot of people who like WMP10 more than iTunes. It has a lot of nice things that iTunes just does not do as well. but lets not turn this into talking about that.

matticus008
Feb 9, 2006, 04:28 PM
From an objective standpoint, the iTunes/iPod situation does reflect a monopoly. But monopolies aren't illegal, it's abuse of that monopoly power that causes problems. This judge thinks that Apple, owning the best-selling mp3 player and the music store with the highest market share, might (and that's the key word in this development) be taking advantage of its dominance and hurting competition.

But what many people seem not to have realized is that iPod and iTunes have grown to be so successful because of the 1 to 1 correlation. Everything on iTunes works on an iPod, simple as that. Taken separately, there's nothing wrong with the products (and because neither one is freely bundled with the other, this isn't the same dynamic as the Microsoft case). iTunes doesn't have to support any other DRM schemes. The iPod line doesn't have to support any other DRM schemes. But the fact that the same company owns the store, the DRM software, and the mp3 player is troublesome to competitors.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to add any other DRM models to iTMS. If people don't like Fairplay, they can buy from other music stores. There is no overwhelming incentive to buy from iTunes and no disincentive to buy from a competitor if you don't own an mp3 player.

The best end result for all parties involved is expanding the DRM types supported by iTunes (the application, not the store). If iTunes can manage files downloaded from Rhapsody or MSN Music or wherever for playback on a computer, everyone wins. When copying to an iPod, iTunes could send a Fairplay-encoded .m4a version of the file if they can get navigate the DMCA stipulations, keeping the iPod and the iTunes Music Store from falling victim to other DRM schemes and input from other companies while still allowing their stupid file formats to play within iTunes and on an iPod. I don't ever want to see WMA support on an iPod, and I don't want other companies' DRM schemes and licensing restrictions/fees to result in higher prices, lower revenues, or any sort of executive input in iTMS or iPod.

timswim78
Feb 9, 2006, 04:30 PM
People have made references to WMA and its DRM. Well, the fact is that MS allows several vendors to sell DRM WMA files, where Apple prohibits others from selling AAC files for the iPod. Microsoft allows people to run WMA files on tons of different media players, while apple restricts people to using DRM AAC files on their computers or their iPods.

mtscott
Feb 9, 2006, 04:42 PM
From an apple Zelot stand point well the answer is clear.....

I recognize your writing, grammar, and arguments.

Welcome back Timelessblur.

dejo
Feb 9, 2006, 04:44 PM
People have made references to WMA and its DRM. Well, the fact is that MS allows several vendors to sell DRM WMA files, where Apple prohibits others from selling AAC files for the iPod. Microsoft allows people to run WMA files on tons of different media players, while apple restricts people to using DRM AAC files on their computers or their iPods.

Yeah, but MS does not allow me to play DRM'ed WMAs on my Mac. Hmm...

timswim78
Feb 9, 2006, 05:28 PM
Yeah, but MS does not allow me to play DRM'ed WMAs on my Mac. Hmm...

OK, WMA DRM's cannot be played on OS X, so I guess that Apple could sue MS. However, I bet that Apple does not want DRM WMA on their computers. Who knows, maybe Apple and MS reached some kind of agreement on this.

Apple has blocked DRM AAC on all products that are not theirs. DRM WMA files can be played on any brand of computer that is running Windows and at least a dozen other vendors' devices.

While MS is trying to sell their product by allowing it to be played on any devices that meet their specifications, Apple is allowing DRM AAC files only on Apple products.

Say what we will about other situations, but when it comes to portable music I think that MS's practices are the less sleazy.

California
Feb 9, 2006, 06:52 PM
So online music stores other than iTMS are all fighting for the 10% that apple does not control.

I don't understand this statement -- or any statement that Apple's market share gives them some sort of "control".

What does that mean? How does Apple "control" the market because people buy their product?

Methinks this is all industrial sabatoge and jealousy on the part of Dell, Sony, M$.

They don't want to put in the r and d dollars and the sweat and blood of inventive THINKING to create a rival to the iPod.

No, it's easier to try to take Apple down with the death by a thousand cuts -- lawsuits.

California
Feb 9, 2006, 07:02 PM
Right now I dont see how apple loosing this case could be bad for consumers. The only person it will sting will be apple and only at first. After that they will gain even more power since now both sides can grow larger.


Wow.

NO understanding of economics, Capitalism or how things actually work or how people actually make money in your statement -- do you believe companies can exist if they don't make money?

Or do you think some magic iPod genie came in and helped Apple create the iPod?

This is pixie dust thinkin'.

There is no magic genie in a bottle who is waiting to give out free music across all platforms just because it is a nice adolescent daydream.

Hard work in a free society equals excellence. People only want to buy excellence. That's why they buy the iPod. For Apple to be taken down by a huge lawsuit doesn't mean that the adolescent daydream of better players and free music is going to come true.

dejo
Feb 9, 2006, 07:19 PM
OK, WMA DRM's cannot be played on OS X, so I guess that Apple could sue MS.

No, but maybe I can sue MS, try to get an Apple-retained lawyer to want to make it a class-action suit and get the same judge to allow the case to move forward, since the logic is the same, yes? ;)

matticus008
Feb 9, 2006, 07:56 PM
OK, WMA DRM's cannot be played on OS X, so I guess that Apple could sue MS. However, I bet that Apple does not want DRM WMA on their computers. Who knows, maybe Apple and MS reached some kind of agreement on this.

Apple has blocked DRM AAC on all products that are not theirs. DRM WMA files can be played on any brand of computer that is running Windows and at least a dozen other vendors' devices.

While MS is trying to sell their product by allowing it to be played on any devices that meet their specifications, Apple is allowing DRM AAC files only on Apple products.

Say what we will about other situations, but when it comes to portable music I think that MS's practices are the less sleazy.

I don't see what's sleazy about the practice of either company. The brand of computer is totally irrelevant to the discussion, as is the operating system, except that Microsoft offers no DRM media player for the Mac. iTunes is compatible with Windows and OS X, as are iPods, as are AAC files with Fairplay. On the platform grounds, Apple has a more comprehensive solution than Microsoft.

The issue isn't iTunes Music Store or the fact that it sells exclusively with Fairplay. MSN Music sells exclusively with the Microsoft DRM scheme. The only issue here is that the iPod is the only mp3 player that works seamlessly with iTMS, a fact that is only a problem now that the iPod and iTunes are #1 in their markets by a huge proportion.

But that's not monopoly abuse, and the reason is because Apple didn't use its monopoly power to create the iPod and force it into the market. The synergy of the two products is what created the #1 ranking. Take a successful monopoly suit--Windows/IE. Microsoft lost because it used its Windows monopoly to push other products (Internet Explorer and Media Player), which were included for free and preinstalled/inseparable from Windows. It didn't lose because it happened to own both the most popular browser and the most popular OS.

There is a complication in that you can use iTMS without an iPod, but you can't use an iPod without iTMS. But again, that's not a breach of monopoly power, because Apple didn't have a monopoly when it released the products.


In the end, it's a stupid suit because monopolies aren't typically illegal (which many lawyers and the general public just don't know). This is doubly true with device/media relationships. If you buy DVDs, you need a DVD player because a VCR won't play them. If you bought a DVD player, well then VHS tapes aren't going to work. A file made for 3D Studio Max is going to require 3D Studio Max to be fully utilized. Just because the application has 75% of the market and the file format accounts for 85% of the volume doesn't mean that either needs to be opened to competition. 3D Studio Max doesn't need to open files from competing applications, and it doesn't have to give away its file format so competitors can use it too.

iMeowbot
Feb 9, 2006, 08:15 PM
No, but maybe I can sue MS, try to get an Apple-retained lawyer to want to make it a class-action suit and get the same judge to allow the case to move forward, since the logic is the same, yes? ;)
A more relevant issue would be whether or not anyone has actually approached Microsoft for a license to put WMP 10 DRM on the Mac and been denied. As far as anyone knows, that hasn't happened; in fact, the one company that is interested in doing such a thing, Telestream, reports that it's still working on it.

timswim78
Feb 9, 2006, 09:31 PM
In any case, does this lawsuit really matter? It all seems like a big waste of time to me.

Timepass
Feb 9, 2006, 10:15 PM
Wow.

NO understanding of economics, Capitalism or how things actually work or how people actually make money in your statement -- do you believe companies can exist if they don't make money?

Or do you think some magic iPod genie came in and helped Apple create the iPod?

This is pixie dust thinkin'.

There is no magic genie in a bottle who is waiting to give out free music across all platforms just because it is a nice adolescent daydream.

Hard work in a free society equals excellence. People only want to buy excellence. That's why they buy the iPod. For Apple to be taken down by a huge lawsuit doesn't mean that the adolescent daydream of better players and free music is going to come true.

no I do understand economics. And for a while I had no issue with how apple was doing things and it was a good move. I did not have an issue until apple pretty much gain near monopoly standing in both markets. Monopolies themselves are not bad until they start hurting compition by making it hard to impossible for someone else to get into the market. Right now the "iPod killers" and "iTMS killers" are having a hard enough time just getting in the door in there respective markets but with how apple has things going new product entering either market need to be a lot better than apple's product because not only does apple has good size fan base that will buy anything apple puts it name on which they can never win over (I thinking 15% of all apple users here) but also the apple name is going to be hard to beat.
I think how apple went about it was a good way to do it but now that they have the power then need to be broken up a little in that market. Best way to put compition out there and drive both to be come a lot better a lot quicker is to allow DRM music from iTMS be played on other players and for the iPod to support other music stores. Over all it will only make apple products better. iTunes does not have to support the other players.

Other question is what are you all going to do when the there becomes a DRM standard finally set and it is WMA because apple refused to let Freeplay be used else where. For me I would solo blame apple for it because as an industry I wouldnt choose to go with a DRM that can only be used on 1 player and from 1 store. I am going to choose the one that can go in multiple players and sold and multiple stores. Apple would be force to go to WMA because it became the industry standard DRM.

Right now I would like them to be broken apart and then there would be proof that both are the best in there market because right now one cannt say that with 100% certaining and proof to back it up.

mtscott
Feb 9, 2006, 11:22 PM
no I do understand economics.

Never would have guessed that.


Monopolies themselves are not bad until they start hurting compition by making it hard to impossible for someone else to get into the market.

From wikipedia.org:

In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

Timepass, please show us how Apple is a monopoly as they are not the sole provider of a product or service. NOTE that the iPod and iTMS are TYPES of products. That is, a portable music player and an on-line music store, respectively. Both of which there are many.


Right now the "iPod killers" and "iTMS killers" are having a hard enough time just getting in the door in there respective markets but with how apple has things going new product entering either market need to be a lot better than apple's product because not only does apple has good size fan base that will buy anything apple puts it name on which they can never win over (I thinking 15% of all apple users here) but also the apple name is going to be hard to beat.

Aside from Apple's consumption of flash memory, what other "barriers to entry" are there, Timepass? Besides, there are other companies already in the market.


I think how apple went about it was a good way to do it but now that they have the power then need to be broken up a little in that market. Best way to put compition out there and drive both to be come a lot better a lot quicker is to allow DRM music from iTMS be played on other players and for the iPod to support other music stores. Over all it will only make apple products better. iTunes does not have to support the other players.

Ask any economist, since you yourself admitted you aren't one. They will tell you that government intervention in the market is NOT a good idea.


Other question is what are you all going to do when the there becomes a DRM standard finally set and it is WMA because apple refused to let Freeplay be used else where. For me I would solo blame apple for it because as an industry I wouldnt choose to go with a DRM that can only be used on 1 player and from 1 store. I am going to choose the one that can go in multiple players and sold and multiple stores. Apple would be force to go to WMA because it became the industry standard DRM.

A standard set by who? If nobody is buying what Microsoft is selling, how on Earth would it become the standard? Your statement lacks all logic. If someone was to force a DRM standard on the public, and Apple has 70% or more of the market, why wouldn't they licence FairPlay to become the defacto standard if they were approached? The royalties would be huge.


Right now I would like them to be broken apart and then there would be proof that both are the best in there market because right now one cannt say that with 100% certaining and proof to back it up.

Just what are you trying to say here? This doesn't make sense.

How did you get back on these boards? Second, why are you even on these boards? You don't seem to own any Apple products, and you've never liked anything Apple's produced.

solvs
Feb 9, 2006, 11:59 PM
I recognize your writing, grammar, and arguments.

Welcome back Timelessblur.
Yeah, I was thinking that too based on his other posts. All anti-Apple.

There are plenty of things to be pissed about when it comes to Apple. This is not one of them. I'm not going to re-iterate what has already been posted numerous times, to other similar threads as well, but I've noticed that no one has actually mentioned anything Apple has done wrong. They'd have to prove Apple was abusing their monopoly, which they aren't. Even if they had a monopoly, which they don't. A majority does not a monopoly make. It's going to be a tough case, and even if Apple loses, it'll probably just be a slap on the wrist and they'll have to promise not to do it again. Whatever "it" is...

Me thinks some of you need to brush up on the laws in the country.

Timepass
Feb 10, 2006, 12:10 AM
You don't seem to own any Apple products, and you've never liked anything Apple's produced.


heh tell that to my ipod and my nice little g3 iBook I have (and with plans to by a macbook Pro next fall when I have the money) I just dont follow apple blindly. I have my own opinans on how they run. I dont change just because apple says so. The ones who follow apple blindly and agree with everything apple does and flip flop there opinans on things based on apple says. I though once apple to controlling the Hard drive base media players and iTMS in a close system they should open it up and I been wanting it to happen for the longest time.

SiliconAddict
Feb 10, 2006, 12:38 AM
Never said that it was. But the argument made agaist apple is the fact that the music from the iTMS will only play on the iPod. And the iPOD will only play music from the iTMS. They are saying the combonation of 2 products that have over 80% of there respect market share locking out all the others is what puts it in legel trouble. They are asking for the iPOD to play music from other music stores other than iTMS and for stuff from the iTMS to play on players other than the iPOD. Right now the set up hurts the compition on both sides.

Oooo I think my bubble still standing. Yours is gone

Not really. How is this different when Apple had 20%, 30%, 50%, 60% of the market. Nothing has changed. Apple hasn't altered their system to take advantage of anything. We've had the same iTMS/iPod closed ecosystem since day one. It's just that the consumer has actively chosen the iTunes/iPod experience without Apple needing to even play any games. Would you punish a company for the choices that consumers make?
That is what this boils down to. There is a certain segment of consumers that don't like one or another aspect of Apple's offering and they are being crybabies about it. That is what this comes down to and again if you don't like it go with someone else that offers almost all the content that iTMS/iPod offers other then design and ease of use.
Again Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Apple doesn't control the market. Apple is the market leader by a wide margine. That is all. Until there aren't any services that give you the same content as the iTMS/iPod combo there is nothing to complain about. Until any yahoo group can't go to the RIAA and get content and then build a music player to compete with Apple's offerings, again there is nothing to complain about.
Also the similarities between Windows and everyone else is not a valid one. Microsoft uses their monopoly to actively push competitors out of the market. Google "embrace, extend, extinguish" sometime. People use Windows because they have to. (Deal with it guys.) Again if you don't want to use Apple's stuff you don't have to while getting the same basic content.

The folks at Redmond must be loving this. They are about to release a major music initiative and people are trying to cut off Apple's balls because they can't play with Microsoft's wares. Microsoft may very well win again without even needing to resort to slimeball tactics. The courts may very well do all the work for them. The irony is not missed.

*blows up his bubble up again and lobs the ball back into your side of the court*

hulugu
Feb 10, 2006, 05:12 PM
Yep, lower prices. I have to pay $26.95 for a CD regardless of whether I want all the songs or not. If I had a WMA-based player, I'd be able to buy just the tracks I want for $1.69 each. But since I have an iPod, I'm forced to buy the entire CD since Apple are refusing to add WMA support, and are also refusing to license out Fairplay. On the other hand, if the system was "opened", then I'd be able to get just the songs I want, at a better price.

1. The $26.95 CD doesn't have anything to do with Apple, but rather with the RIAA, which I would argue constitutes a monopolistic cartel and is a much bigger problem than Apple, even if Apple was a monopoly.
2. Vertical markets are not considered a monopoly and Apple's iTMS is definitely not an 'abusive' monopoly.
3. Apple is not the only Mp3-player manufacturer, Apple is not the only Digital Download site, thus choice still exists in the market. Thus Apple cannot be a monopoly.
4. Assuming that Apple did have the CD you wanted, would you still consider it a monopoly. In other words, isn't the problem you can't get what you want, rather than Apple creating an unfair system?
5. The lack of competition because of the RIAA sets the prices, not Apple.

hulugu
Feb 10, 2006, 05:29 PM
In any case, does this lawsuit really matter? It all seems like a big waste of time to me.

It could matter if Apple is found guilty. This would essentially make vertical markets illegal or at least 'regulated' monopolies.

hulugu
Feb 10, 2006, 05:30 PM
heh tell that to my ipod and my nice little g3 iBook I have (and with plans to by a macbook Pro next fall when I have the money) I just dont follow apple blindly. I have my own opinans on how they run. I dont change just because apple says so. The ones who follow apple blindly and agree with everything apple does and flip flop there opinans on things based on apple says. I though once apple to controlling the Hard drive base media players and iTMS in a close system they should open it up and I been wanting it to happen for the longest time.

Before I say anything rude, is English a second-language for you?

winmacguy
Feb 11, 2006, 05:03 AM
If you look at "Location:" you'll notice this guy/gal is from New Zealand.
1 NZD = 0.68 USD
26 NZD = 17.64 USD
Not the whole world calculates with US dollars...
Nermal is a guy and like myself doesn't directly have access to the iTunes store and there is no iTunes NZ store yet so the only online music tracks available are from loacl online music stores that are only WMA compatible. Most new CDs in NZ sell for retail for around 29.95 to 34.95.

steve_hill4
Feb 11, 2006, 07:21 AM
Best case - Apple wins the case.
Next best - Apple sees it will lose and decides to license Fairplay to any store that wants it. We would truly see which of these stores really want to get music on the iPod
Worst case - Apple loses the case and is forced to open up the iPod to WMA with DRM and is forced to sell WMA with DRM from ITMS.

Those of you hoping that DRM goes away - give it up!
I think if anything, the Next Best case you describe could open up the iPod to all those currently resisting it. So many who go for Creative or other brands go for them because they have all their music in WMA and/or have an account with Napster. If Napster took up the challenge and offered *.m4p files alongside their DRM'd WMA, more people would download that version and buy an iPod I feel.

In that worst case, I don't see how that could be considered fair. Firstly, other manufacturers would also have to open their devices to aac, otherwise it would be like handing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties to Microsoft potentially, and I don't see that being popular or considered a fair judgement. Microsoft aren't the favourite company when it comes to the courts, so it would be crazy to think they could win something out of this.

Microsoft were forced to release a version of Windows without WMP included after the EU considered this an unfair advantage to Microsoft over their competitors. Until they complied with the ruling, they were going to be fined about €3 million a day, every day after the deadline. The EU certainly wouldn't make a decision like the worst case described, and would more likely force Apple to licence Fairplay, which could actually see Apple's market share increase.

POHeerwig
Feb 11, 2006, 09:06 AM
This is one of the very things that persistently drives me crazy about the US legal system. People perceive that it's just not 'fair' for Apple to have such a large marketshare (negating the fact that the entire reason they have it is because they spent a great deal of money on research to find the best solution to date to make audio files small, efficient and clear).

The 'spirit' of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is to gain a free economy that can stand the cold-test of competition. Competition thereby leads to innovation and initiative and furthers the market, decreases prices, etc. Does Apple have a monopoly on the digital music market (80%)? Sure, but there are other factors that are needed…

Monopoly power (so much market strength that you have ability to set market pricing standards or exclude competition) isn't enough. Sure, Apple has a monopoly. That's a given. But part two is that they also have to have an 'intent' to monopolize. In other words, did Apple twist arms or use predatory means to acquire the market share or, did they abuse the monopoly power after they gained it? I believe they just used smart people, smart ideas and great business practices.

Did they use 'tying' agreements? Meaning did they say you can only use iTunes if you have an iPod? Hmmm, let me think. Nope.

Is Apple making concerted efforts or conspiring to to 'unreasonably' restrain free trade? Maybe, if they're telling music companies that they can only use Apple as their online music sources. They don't seem to be doing that to me.

California
Feb 12, 2006, 05:30 PM
This is one of the very things that persistently drives me crazy about the US legal system. People perceive that it's just not 'fair' for Apple to have such a large marketshare (negating the fact that the entire reason they have it is because they spent a great deal of money on research to find the best solution to date to make audio files small, efficient and clear).

The 'spirit' of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is to gain a free economy that can stand the cold-test of competition. Competition thereby leads to innovation and initiative and furthers the market, decreases prices, etc. Does Apple have a monopoly on the digital music market (80%)? Sure, but there are other factors that are needed…

Monopoly power (so much market strength that you have ability to set market pricing standards or exclude competition) isn't enough. Sure, Apple has a monopoly. That's a given. But part two is that they also have to have an 'intent' to monopolize. In other words, did Apple twist arms or use predatory means to acquire the market share or, did they abuse the monopoly power after they gained it? I believe they just used smart people, smart ideas and great business practices.

Did they use 'tying' agreements? Meaning did they say you can only use iTunes if you have an iPod? Hmmm, let me think. Nope.

Is Apple making concerted efforts or conspiring to to 'unreasonably' restrain free trade? Maybe, if they're telling music companies that they can only use Apple as their online music sources. They don't seem to be doing that to me.

Well, thanks for that clear statement. The "monopoly" came about because NO ONE ELSE was doing what Apple did, back in the early part of this century, by developing the iPod. There is a difference between a "rigged, illegal" monopoly and one that Apple found itself in NOT just by spending money by the way on research -- but by old fashioned creative thinking.

What bothers me about this lawsuit is that Apple is getting punished for creative thinking and innovation.

Apple did not do anything illegal in creating the iPod and the fact that no other product is as good.

Some of the posters on this thread seem to think that artificially coming down on Apple and forcing them to change the iPod interface will miraculously make things cheaper for them.

And they think that is what the government should be wasting its time on for them -- making their leisure time music listening cheap.

That's insane. When government gets into the marketplace -- you have lousy products and lousy service because individual incentive is taken away. Ever stand in line at the DMV for car license renewal? That's government at work.

Timepass
Feb 12, 2006, 05:44 PM
That's insane. When government gets into the marketplace -- you have lousy products and lousy service because individual incentive is taken away. Ever stand in line at the DMV for car license renewal? That's government at work.

Hmm people just dont know the ways around advoiding the DMV or how to skip those lines. The trick is knowing at what time of day to go. What DMVs to advoid, or know other ways around going to the DMV. Last time I went to the DMV was to get my DL replaced. In and out in 10 mins. For the car I either mail it in, use the internet, or go to the county court house (time of day trick applies here) or go to one of the other places I know that do it. As for times to advoid, Lunch hour, and after 4pm. For me 2-3 pm is a good target time to go. In and out in 15 mins

heh for the most part I given up on this tread since people are quite clear not going to change there opinan. I for one agree with the law suit and have not seen anything posted that in my eyes is valid to change that opinan. I seen quite a few points that are just wrong in the since on what the lawsuit is on. The entire law suit only has to deal with the fact that the music from iTMS will only work on the iPod and the iPod will only play music from the iTMS. This set up is making it hard to near impossible for competiors from getting into either market. Valid argument.
People also point out that it is agaist capitilism and your right it is but the United States have never been a full capitilism set up and a true capitislism set up for a country would NEVER work and it would fail (they take care of roads piping untilities and so on, Plus make sure that no one gets in a possition to make it almost impossible for competing products to get in. It goverment steps in to keep things in check. It all a balance set up bettween the 2. We do need a goverment intervetion for quite a few things to keep everything up and running and to drive product develoment at times. I think part of the reason I see a lot of good the goverment has done is just because of my field of study. They set the requirements for safty evinveriomental and quite a few other things that we all take forgranted. Like the air and water you breath, thank the goverment, Safety in you cars you drive, again thank the goverment, like the roads you drive on thank the goverment, Police force thank the goverment, the education you are getting, thank the goverment for that. This list goes on. But people just take forgranted all the good the goverment does.

California
Feb 12, 2006, 06:00 PM
Hmm people just dont know the ways around advoiding the DMV or how to skip those lines. The trick is knowing at what time of day to go. What DMVs to advoid, or know other ways around going to the DMV. Last time I went to the DMV was to get my DL replaced. In and out in 10 mins. For the car I either mail it in, use the internet, or go to the county court house (time of day trick applies here) or go to one of the other places I know that do it. As for times to advoid, Lunch hour, and after 4pm. For me 2-3 pm is a good target time to go. In and out in 15 mins

heh for the most part I given up on this tread since people are quite clear not going to change there opinan. I for one agree with the law suit and have not seen anything posted that in my eyes is valid to change that opinan. I seen quite a few points that are just wrong in the since on what the lawsuit is on. The entire law suit only has to deal with the fact that the music from iTMS will only work on the iPod and the iPod will only play music from the iTMS. This set up is making it hard to near impossible for competiors from getting into either market. Valid argument.
People also point out that it is agaist capitilism and your right it is but the United States have never been a full capitilism set up and a true capitislism set up for a country would NEVER work and it would fail (they take care of roads piping untilities and so on, Plus make sure that no one gets in a possition to make it almost impossible for competing products to get in. It goverment steps in to keep things in check. It all a balance set up bettween the 2. We do need a goverment intervetion for quite a few things to keep everything up and running and to drive product develoment at times. I think part of the reason I see a lot of good the goverment has done is just because of my field of study. They set the requirements for safty evinveriomental and quite a few other things that we all take forgranted. Like the air and water you breath, thank the goverment, Safety in you cars you drive, again thank the goverment, like the roads you drive on thank the goverment, Police force thank the goverment, the education you are getting, thank the goverment for that. This list goes on. But people just take forgranted all the good the goverment does.

Obviously, you never took debate or rhetoric courses.

The point was not that you or anyone else can invent ways to get around the DMV. The point was that service at the DMV is not really that special. This is because of something called "human nature".

Human nature says that we don't work really really hard if there is no incentive. Human nature says that if we know it is very difficult to get fired from a government job, we aren't going to do an excellent job. Because we don't really have to.

Imagine, my friend, if the DMV made iPods.

Then run away screaming from the Orwellian nightmare.

Timepass
Feb 12, 2006, 08:28 PM
Obviously, you never took debate or rhetoric courses.

The point was not that you or anyone else can invent ways to get around the DMV. The point was that service at the DMV is not really that special. This is because of something called "human nature".

Human nature says that we don't work really really hard if there is no incentive. Human nature says that if we know it is very difficult to get fired from a government job, we aren't going to do an excellent job. Because we don't really have to.

Imagine, my friend, if the DMV made iPods.

Then run away screaming from the Orwellian nightmare.


As I also stated it a balancing act bettween the 2 sides. The goverment makes sure free market does not get out of hand and covers a lot of the spots that free market never would bother to care about or do. Namely anything for the general public and service (example roads and highways). To keep competion in place and keep the market open for new products to enter (from the past standard oil break up. Keeping M$ in check and so on). For general heath and safety (OSHA, EPA and so on), For the general well being of the population (heathcare schools and so on). At the same time not taking 2 much contral and not to keep incentive. It is a fine line. Go to far one way and there is no reason to improve. Go to far the other way and everything gets out of control. The 2nd one being I think the worse. A truelly free market would tear it self to shreads and in the end we all loose. It a lot harder to control captlism from going to far than the goverment going to far. Easy way to do it is to let the market run free and tighten the reins a little when it starts getting out of hand (example of out of hand would be the californa power problems a few years ago. The goverment screwed up big time, but corporations took way to much advatage of it to make money, mind you that summer there where power problems nation wide in cost and very little on the free and open market bettween states. But it does become an issue).

The US has one of the freest markets in the world. Some could say it is 2 free. It is a very diffcult line to walk bettween the 2. This case is on one of those thin lines. Only time will tell the out comes. Heck apple loosing this case might be a good thing for them. It would force them to open up the iTMS and the iPod. A lot of people want to use the iTMS but cant because there player will not play them music. At the same time a lot of people want the iPod but dont want to buy it because they can not use the other music stores. I honestly dont see the iPod market dropping much in size. I more see it growing in this change. The only thing that could take a hit is the iTMS and and as apple has stated the store was more made to sell iPods and really only breaks even. So it could potentional greattly increase iPod sells

California
Feb 12, 2006, 08:48 PM
As I also stated it a balancing act bettween the 2 sides. The goverment makes sure free market does not get out of hand and covers a lot of the spots that free market never would bother to care about or do. Namely anything for the general public and service (example roads and highways). To keep competion in place and keep the market open for new products to enter (from the past standard oil break up. Keeping M$ in check and so on). For general heath and safety (OSHA, EPA and so on), For the general well being of the population (heathcare schools and so on). At the same time not taking 2 much contral and not to keep incentive. It is a fine line. Go to far one way and there is no reason to improve. Go to far the other way and everything gets out of control. The 2nd one being I think the worse. A truelly free market would tear it self to shreads and in the end we all loose. It a lot harder to control captlism from going to far than the goverment going to far. Easy way to do it is to let the market run free and tighten the reins a little when it starts getting out of hand (example of out of hand would be the californa power problems a few years ago. The goverment screwed up big time, but corporations took way to much advatage of it to make money, mind you that summer there where power problems nation wide in cost and very little on the free and open market bettween states. But it does become an issue).

The US has one of the freest markets in the world. Some could say it is 2 free. It is a very diffcult line to walk bettween the 2. This case is on one of those thin lines. Only time will tell the out comes. Heck apple loosing this case might be a good thing for them. It would force them to open up the iTMS and the iPod. A lot of people want to use the iTMS but cant because there player will not play them music. At the same time a lot of people want the iPod but dont want to buy it because they can not use the other music stores. I honestly dont see the iPod market dropping much in size. I more see it growing in this change. The only thing that could take a hit is the iTMS and and as apple has stated the store was more made to sell iPods and really only breaks even. So it could potentional greattly increase iPod sells

Do you work for a living or are you a student?

Pertinent because the spelling and grammatical errors equal problems of comprehension and logic.

mtscott
Feb 12, 2006, 11:11 PM
The entire law suit only has to deal with the fact that the music from iTMS will only work on the iPod and the iPod will only play music from the iTMS. This set up is making it hard to near impossible for competiors from getting into either market. Valid argument.

No, not a valid argument. The iTMS and iPod are not "markets", as you refer to them. What is preventing ANY company from entering the on-line music sales market OR the portable music player market?

I think part of the reason I see a lot of good the goverment has done is just because of my field of study.

Really, what field is that? And, if you had even read a single thing people had posted, you'd remember or know, that this is not being done by the "government". This is currently working through the courts.

We do need a goverment intervetion for quite a few things to keep everything up and running and to drive product develoment at times.

And do you know this from your field of study as well? Listen, I am an economics and commerce double major student. Your arguments hold no water. As well, they aren't even "arguments". You just post "I'm right. You're wrong. Becuase I know."

As far as your argument that you have to know when to "time" your visit to the DMV, ask any person who lived under the Russian communist regime how long they had to wait for services/products. Also, ask them when the best time of the day was to go. They'll all tell you the same thing. It didn't matter what time you went, you almost never got what you needed.


A truelly free market would tear it self to shreads and in the end we all loose.

Back this up with proof. How do you know this?


It would force them to open up the iTMS and the iPod. A lot of people want to use the iTMS but cant because there player will not play them music. At the same time a lot of people want the iPod but dont want to buy it because they can not use the other music stores. I honestly dont see the iPod market dropping much in size. I more see it growing in this change. The only thing that could take a hit is the iTMS and and as apple has stated the store was more made to sell iPods and really only breaks even. So it could potentional greattly increase iPod sells

That's great. You can have that opinion. However, please explain to all of us here WHY Apple should be forced to do this while keeping in mind that APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY in the portable music player or on-line music store market. Majority market share does not equal monopoly.

Timepass
Feb 13, 2006, 12:13 AM
And do you know this from your field of study as well? Listen, I am an economics and commerce double major student. Your arguments hold no water. As well, they aren't even "arguments". You just post "I'm right. You're wrong. Becuase I know."

Answer you first question it is Civil Engineering/Constuction Tech. A lot of it goes into laws and regulations. Those in the EPA and OSHA. I also learn that people with you back ground have a very bad veiw of any goverment involvement.

Back this up with proof. How do you know this?


Well we can just look at history. Lets see truely Captilism set up (aka no goverment intervention)
Lets see things pasted agaist M$. They got there though Captilism so why did they deserver to be hit with those law suits. They got there under Captilism. Unethical yes but Captilism does not take in account for ethics.
Or we can look at other points in history the break up of Standard Oil, SBC, Railroad industy the list does go on. But those where all goverment intervention so that was bad for the economy.

Now a 100% captilism set up would never of past EPA laws, or built roads, made safety laws. They dont care about those thing. It all about making money and gaining complete market control. Why spend money on general public goods. So no public education, no roads, no untilities. You would have price fixing, Abuse of power. Apple would not be here they would of been killed. There would be no goverment procection. No police force to keep law and order. These are all goverment funded. 100% captilism does not have goverment funding for any thing. It would tear itself appart and invetion would be killed. Safty would not be here. It a fine line one has to walk. But then again some people always forget about the good of goverment involvement.


That's great. You can have that opinion. However, please explain to all of us here WHY Apple should be forced to do this while keeping in mind that APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY in the portable music player or on-line music store market. Majority market share does not equal monopoly.

You are right apple does not have a Monopoly but neither does M$ by definition. It just near monopoly power. Both have that in there respected markets. You clearly can see zero potention for apple loosing this case to being good for apple. I at least can see some good in for apple in loosing this case. That being it has a huge chance to grow larger in both markets (more for the iPod than the iTMS). People who dont own an iPod will be more willing to buy music off the iTMS. Even if the iTMS part drops some does it really hurt apple no. Apple even stated the entire point of the iTMS is to sell more iPods and it break even at best. But on the flip side the iPods would be forced to open up and play music from other stores. I personally know a lot of people who will not buy an iPod because it lock into ONLY the iTMS for the online store and they have music from other stores and want to be able to play it. They love the iPod but will not buy one because they can not play a good share of their music with it. Now if the iPod would play it they would buy it. I can easily seeing it grow the iPod market share and number sold and that means a lot more money for apple which is good. It would off set any losses from the change to the iTMS and still gain them more money which is good. I think the iPod biggest draw back to apple right now is being lock into only the iTMS. That draw back being for apple and it does hurt sells. Think about it. Apple is a hardware company first and they want to sell more iPods before they sell more songs on iTMS. Beside the iPod is number 1 because A it a good player and 2 it tie into to iTunes. They dont have to share the tie in with iTunes just the store, so they are not giving away the iPods biggest advatage just giving more opintion to people thinking about it.

People dont buy the iPod because it is limited to the iTMS. They would buy it if it was open up. Honestly how many people would buy another player instead of the iPod for just the iTMS. I think it the other way around. the Online music store as a whole drive the sells of potible music players. iPod limitation hurts the iPod more than it helps it. Now iTMS store limitation I give you helps it more than it hurts it. But I think it the other way around for the iPod and Apple a hardware company first and the iPod is hardware.

hulugu
Feb 13, 2006, 01:00 AM
The US has one of the freest markets in the world. Some could say it is 2 free. It is a very diffcult line to walk bettween the 2. This case is on one of those thin lines. Only time will tell the out comes. Heck apple loosing this case might be a good thing for them. It would force them to open up the iTMS and the iPod. A lot of people want to use the iTMS but cant because there player will not play them music. At the same time a lot of people want the iPod but dont want to buy it because they can not use the other music stores. I honestly dont see the iPod market dropping much in size. I more see it growing in this change. The only thing that could take a hit is the iTMS and and as apple has stated the store was more made to sell iPods and really only breaks even. So it could potentional greattly increase iPod sells

The problem with a decision resulting from this case, I think, would be the prohibition of vertically integrated markets. Furthermore, this wouldn't lower the price of songs in either the US or (for Nermal NZ). The reason for this is the artificial limits created by the RIAA cartel. Apple sets the price of iPods, but the price of iTMS song is not. More accurately, the price of music is set by an agreement by Apple and the RIAA (or various smaller labels) and it's in Apple's best interests to keep the price down when the iPod is tied to it. The iTMS acts as a loss-leader for the iPod and thus Apple only wants to make enough to cover costs and a major part of this cost is the price charged by the labels.
Now, with this in mind, Apple could abandon iTMS for iPod sales and switch over to WMA-based songs. However, this puts Apple in a very difficult situation. If they become beholden to MS, not only do a chunk of their profits go to Microsoft, but the viability of the Macintosh platform becomes based around Microsoft's willingness to supply a WMA platform for OSX. This diminishes QuickTime (the real trojan horse of iTunes) and enhances a competitor’s product. And what does Apple gain in this situation? Nothing, in fact they lose a lot. And what does the consumer gain? Jack squat because the price is still maintained by the labels whether it's MS or Apple.
A government 'break-up' of Apple would be an unfair decision considering Microsoft was allowed to retain both the OS and the applications divisions of the company. The Real decision was a bad one because nothing has changed for the customer, WMA is still a major platform force on Windows machines, and the prices for Windows didn't change. A 'break-up' would only damage Apple and would, in my opinion, hurt customers because it would enhance WMA and eventually drive the market towards a single player: Microsoft.
If you really want a good system, demand an independent consortium to create a single DRM model that is accessible by all players. At the same time demand that the US government use Sherman to break up the RIAA and MPAA and force the media companies to deal as single players. This would do more for customers than anything else.

mtscott
Feb 13, 2006, 01:26 AM
I also learn that people with you back ground have a very bad veiw of any goverment involvement.

My background? What is my background? Do you know why I'm studying towards these degrees? I'm looking to become a forensic accountant with the federal government. So therefore, no I don't have a bad view of "ANY GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT."


Well we can just look at history. Lets see truely Captilism set up (aka no goverment intervention)
Lets see things pasted agaist M$. They got there though Captilism so why did they deserver to be hit with those law suits. They got there under Captilism. Unethical yes but Captilism does not take in account for ethics.
Or we can look at other points in history the break up of Standard Oil, SBC, Railroad industy the list does go on. But those where all goverment intervention so that was bad for the economy.

Now a 100% captilism set up would never of past EPA laws, or built roads, made safety laws. They dont care about those thing. It all about making money and gaining complete market control. Why spend money on general public goods. So no public education, no roads, no untilities. You would have price fixing, Abuse of power. Apple would not be here they would of been killed. There would be no goverment procection. No police force to keep law and order. These are all goverment funded. 100% captilism does not have goverment funding for any thing. It would tear itself appart and invetion would be killed. Safty would not be here. It a fine line one has to walk. But then again some people always forget about the good of goverment involvement.

First of all, I can barely understand less than half of what you have written here. Secondly, did you just state that I "always forget about the good of government involvement?" Not quite. As well, prove your statements if you can. You've made a list of sweeping generalisations without any proof.


You are right apple does not have a Monopoly but neither does M$ by definition.

Actually, Microsoft has a form of a monopoly. From wikipedia.org:

A coercive monopoly is one that arises and whose existence is maintained as the result of any sort of activity that violates the principle of a free market and is therefore insulated from competition which would otherwise be a potential threat to its superior status. The term is typically used by those who favor laissez-faire capitalism.

Well, let's see here. Microsoft forces/forced vendors to pay more for their products if they also offer those of the competition (OEMs selling Windows and Linux). Microsoft charges the price of 2 products for 1 through market dominance (Windows 3.1/DOS to Windows 95). Sounds like a monopoly to me.


You clearly can see zero potention for apple loosing this case to being good for apple. I at least can see some good in for apple in loosing this case. That being it has a huge chance to grow larger in both markets (more for the iPod than the iTMS). People who dont own an iPod will be more willing to buy music off the iTMS.

How do you know that having the iTMS "opened up" to other music players would benefit Apple? If they had to do that, they would have to support other players within FairPlay, costing them money to extend that capability. Another, even worse outcome, would be that Apple would need to support other DRMs such as Janus/PlaysForSure, in which case they would have to pay licencing fees. How would being able to support other music players in the iTMS make people more likely to buy music off iTMS?


People dont buy the iPod because it is limited to the iTMS. They would buy it if it was open up. Honestly how many people would buy another player instead of the iPod for just the iTMS. I think it the other way around. the Online music store as a whole drive the sells of potible music players. iPod limitation hurts the iPod more than it helps it. Now iTMS store limitation I give you helps it more than it hurts it. But I think it the other way around for the iPod and Apple a hardware company first and the iPod is hardware.

You're right. People don't buy the iPod because it's limited to the iTMS. They buy iPods because they like the way they work and look, as well as other reasons.

The rest of your arguments are so poorly constructed and so full of simple logic holes, circular arguments, and other mistakes, I can't make any sense of them.


If you really want a good system, demand an independent consortium to create a single DRM model that is accessible by all players. At the same time demand that the US government use Sherman to break up the RIAA and MPAA and force the media companies to deal as single players. This would do more for customers than anything else.

Exactly. A well written post.

California
Feb 13, 2006, 02:03 AM
Answer you first question it is Civil Engineering/Constuction Tech. A lot of it goes into laws and regulations.

While it is a vaguely interesting to follow your logical processes, as they are, unfold on these threads, the lack of comprehension of basic legal premises or the role of government in our everyday lives is astonishing.

You are holding the State up as a moral ideal. This is projecting a moral patriarchy upon the government -- instead of realizing government is only as moral as the people who make up the government. In other words -- you and me.

As for your chosen field of endeavor, the Hoover Dam and the Panama Canal, among other things, were built by civil engineers, correct?

The Canal runs to this day, more than one hundred years later, based on those century old calculations. Now read carefully: You can bet there were no gaps in logic, errors in spelling, or sloppy mathematical calculations in the design and construction of the Panama Canal.

Please, go back and get some rudimentary tutoring in all the basics of English, Math. and Constitutional Law. And stop waxing ineloquent on your own personal theory of the iPod, iTunes, Apple, Capitalism and the "good" of government. You peddle dim socialism without even knowing it.

Gasu E.
Feb 13, 2006, 12:52 PM
Yep, lower prices. I have to pay $26.95 for a CD regardless of whether I want all the songs or not. If I had a WMA-based player, I'd be able to buy just the tracks I want for $1.69 each. But since I have an iPod, I'm forced to buy the entire CD since Apple are refusing to add WMA support, and are also refusing to license out Fairplay. On the other hand, if the system was "opened", then I'd be able to get just the songs I want, at a better price.

You know, thanks to modern medicine, there is a cure for that. You can have your iPod surgically removed and replaced with a WMA-based player. Really. I've heard the procedure is quite painless and can be performed on an outpatient basis.

Gasu E.
Feb 13, 2006, 12:55 PM
a bunch of american students came to my university here in scotland, the other day, for the semester, and asked why our currency, the pound, wasn't called dollars, like in england.


Isn't that confusing? Like, if you go to the store and ask for "a pound of haggis", what do you get?

:p

Gasu E.
Feb 13, 2006, 01:19 PM
This what the complaints are about. Apple has a near monopoly in the digital music player market. They use this to prevent competition in the online music sales market.



You start out with a misconception. "Monopoly " does not mean "huge market share." A monopoly only exists if there is a structual barrier to entry preventing other companies from entering. In the case of Microsoft, there is a huge pile of software that is Windows-only. What is the barrier to entry for an iPod competitor? Lots of protective cases?

Any company can enter the MP3 player business and leverage the large selection of WMA and MP3 download sides. Plenty of songs, often at prices better than what Apple offers. There is only one piece of jukebox software and one download site that are unique to the iPod, and they are both made by Apple. There are no structural barriers to entry of a new iPod competitor, hence no monopoly.

Gasu E.
Feb 13, 2006, 01:27 PM
hate to burst that bubble you think you made but it does not matter how many competing products there are. All that matters is market share

Actually not true. There have to be competitive barriers to entry for a monopoly. In the case of MS, the fact is that there are zillions of software products that run only on Windows. This is a barrier for any competitive OS. If only MS products were Windows-only, the case for MS as a monopoly would be non-existent.

hulugu
Feb 13, 2006, 10:08 PM
People also point out that it is agaist capitilism and your right it is but the United States have never been a full capitilism set up and a true capitislism set up for a country would NEVER work and it would fail (they take care of roads piping untilities and so on, Plus make sure that no one gets in a possition to make it almost impossible for competing products to get in. It goverment steps in to keep things in check. It all a balance set up bettween the 2. We do need a goverment intervetion for quite a few things to keep everything up and running and to drive product develoment at times. I think part of the reason I see a lot of good the goverment has done is just because of my field of study. They set the requirements for safty evinveriomental and quite a few other things that we all take forgranted. Like the air and water you breath, thank the goverment, Safety in you cars you drive, again thank the goverment, like the roads you drive on thank the goverment, Police force thank the goverment, the education you are getting, thank the goverment for that. This list goes on. But people just take forgranted all the good the goverment does.

Government is like a shovel, turned one way it's a force for construction and progress, turned another way it's a great way to stove in someone's skull.
With this is mind we must understand what government is good for and what it isn't. It is very good at focusing communal goals, i.e. roads, utilities, regulation, taxes, into a single imperative, thus making these very expensive projects a possibility. A single corporate payer would never have built the Interstate highway system, for example.
However, government is very bad at picking technology and is very bad at making consumer choices. It tends to pick one solution which tends to have influential friends even if this ultimately creates a problematic situation. Government is great at providing services, and can be a referee between consumers and corporations, but it should avoid choosing technological systems.

Secondly, are you an American student? And, is English your primary language? I ask because your spelling and grammar are poor and you seem oblivious to it. Now, I can't speak in another language, must less use another language to do anything more than order food and ask for the nearest bathroom, so if you are a secondary-English speaker than I retract my statement and salute your capacity to absorb a difficult language. If, however, you are an American and an English speaker and a college student you must be able to write. If you're using OSX, then you have no excuse not to at least be able to spell. I'm not asking for perfection, but for all our sakes, fix it.