Apple, the new Microsoft

[Black Belt]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136949-c,companynews/article.html

"Ten years ago, Microsoft was the company everyone loved to hate.

The most vociferous Microsoft haters slammed the company for being a greedy industry bully that used its monopolistic, clunky, copycat operating system to force software on users and coerce partners into unfair licensing deals.

Don't look now, but the role of the industry's biggest bully is increasingly played by Apple, not Microsoft. Here's a look at how Apple has shoved Microsoft aside as the company with the worst reputation as a monopolist, copycat and a bully..."

[Queso]

Oh yeah. Ballmer would love to convince the world that's the case wouldn't he?

When I can watch Football League game highlights on my Mac and Windows users can't PC World will have a point. Until then, this is nothing but flamebaiting.

[Black Belt]

You obviously didn't read the article which is quite good.

[Queso]

Have to confess I didn't. I've been reading a lot of these pieces lately. The tech press appears to be full of them.

Almost as if they're being centrally generated.....

[Black Belt]

Here, I'll give you Mulder's phone number :D

[GimmeSlack12]

He has a point in this article, but I do have to say its a bit blown out of proportion. Apple is gaining momentum and now people want to start making comparisons. That is all good and understood, but it just isn't the same game as to what MS was doing with IE.

The iPod does not have to be purchased. And people have a choice still. This is absolutely not a monopoly! Where IE was in the OS you used and could not get rid of.

[Black Belt]

He has a point in this article, but I do have to say its a bit blown out of proportion. Apple is gaining momentum and now people want to start making comparisons. That is all good and understood, but it just isn't the same game as to what MS was doing with IE.

The iPod does not have to be purchased. And people have a choice still. This is absolutely not a monopoly! Where IE was in the OS you used and could not get rid of.

You mean like Safari :p

[Blue Velvet]

The article is completely out of proportion. The issue of DRM-ed WMV streaming adopted by global media corps and the whole controversy about OXML far outweighs anything Apple are doing.

[Black Belt]

Well out of proportion is debatable, only because Apple has been unsuccessful to the same degree in the marketplace, but the tactics are the same. That was the whole point of the article. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Shaduu]

And "bundling" works. Steve Jobs bragged this week that Apple has distributed 600 million copies of iTunes to date. The overwhelming majority of those copies were iTunes for Windows. And iTunes for Windows' popularity isn't driven by software product quality. ITunes is the slowest, clunkiest, most nonintuitive application on my system. But I need it because I love my iPods.

Sorry, unintuitive, slow and clunky? Jesus, that guy must be stupid if he finds iTunes unintuitive, and the only reason iTunes is slow for me is 'cause I'm running a 1GHz PPC machine.

Wait, here's more proof: if Apple have sold >100 million iPods and distributed 600 million copies of iTunes, surely there's around 500 million consumers who must be happy with the product, no? And of course iTunes for Windows would have a higher majority of distribution because, well, I doubt that even needs explaining.

Sorry for focussing on that paragraph, but I feel it kinda sums up the remainder of the article quite well. If you're gonna take a random stab at Apple, at least make it a decent attempt. :rolleyes:

[Black Belt]

I have a Quadcore Speed Demon and iTunes is the slowest thing on my computer and it crashes far too much. That's just the truth of it. I agree that it is not "non-intuitive", I have never had a problem operating it, although it is terrible for manipulating the file info. If I had a choice and there was something better, I would definitely try it. But I don't have a choice.

[Blue Velvet]

I would argue that iTunes is not deliberate lock-in, it was around way before the iPod. And it makes complete sense to bundle an established song management app with a music playing device... really, it all has to be seen as one product with all the peripheral stuff like videos and such, merely to support iPod/iPhone sales. It's not as though iPods only play DRMed AAC files from the iTMS.

My old vacuum cleaner only took Hoover bags, razors only take blades from their manufacturers. These sort of manufacturer's activities have been around a lot longer than either Apple or Microsoft.

So, coupled with the obvious stance that Apple is not going to purchase a license to employ DRM Windows Media across the entire range of its products, and that they've had to use their own DRM solution — at first — to get the content producers on board to launch an outlet that supports their own devices, I think it's all fair game. Particularly as Sony and Microsoft tried and died with their own first attempts.

I see people all around me with all sorts of music players, not just iPods. I see Apple users locked out of all sorts of online services from banking to media distribution, I see my own work situation severely compromised because the IT team will not support or even enable our Mac network to be integrated with ours... that is where the true monopoly lies, with Microsoft and its well-reported monopolistic business practices, many of which have landed them in hot legal water.

[Shaduu]

I have a Quadcore Speed Demon and iTunes is the slowest thing on my computer and it crashes far too much. That's just the truth of it. I agree that it is not "non-intuitive", I have never had a problem operating it, although it is terrible for manipulating the file info. If I had a choice and there was something better, I would definitely try it. But I don't have a choice.

What's so hard about hitting Apple+I/Ctrl+I/File>Get Info?

One assumes that's a PC, if so, yes I'd agree iTunes for Windows is ridiculously slow. I'm sure you know what the solution is. :p

[notjustjay]

The author of this article is either being deliberately obtuse or has no sense of perspective, even though in the end he confesses to supporting Apple.

Comparing the "forced" use of iTunes, one single application whose primary purpose is to interface with a piece of proprietery hardware, with the forced licensing of Microsoft Windows pushed by Microsoft onto its PC vendors?

I can reformat my PC and get rid of Windows but I can't reformat my iPod and install something else, and that makes Apple the bad guy?

Let's go after Nintendo next. I think they're being monopolistic and forcing stuff on me since I can't reformat my Wii and replace it with Xbox system software.

"Apple has an iPod customer for life. Microsoft never had this kind of monopoly power." Right, because good ol' Microsoft would never dream of trying to lock you into purchasing products that only works with their stuff. Surely they wouldn't even try it, even if they did have the technology to do so. So all that music you bought under the PlaysForSure moniker, it'll work with any other audio player, including newer players from Microsoft.... oops.

Apple and its monopolistic pricing. Yeah, big, bad evil Apple, bullying the studios to not have price increases on music, and, indeed, to try and cut prices. Big, horrible, evil Apple.

Now, I grant you, Apple is a big corporation like everyone else, and in the end they're not some kind of consumer advocate, they're out to make money too. But Apple is the company that consistently seems to know how to make money by pleasing its customers, rather than bullying them into submission. Apple's so big because, by and large, we LIKE it that way. They make decisions that are GOOD for consumers, like selling DRM-free music and pushing for constant, even lower, prices from music studios. They go against the convention of the major studios and other players, betting that THIS is the approach consumers like and will ultimately be more profitable for them. And we're supposed to criticize them because they were right?

[Black Belt]

I would argue that iTunes is not deliberate lock-in, it was around way before the iPod. And it makes complete sense to bundle an established song management app with a music playing device... really, it all has to be seen as one product with all the peripheral stuff like videos and such, merely to support iPod/iPhone sales. It's not as though iPods only play DRMed AAC files from the iTMS.

You're sounding like Microsoft ;) "Oh you can't separate it" Sure you can! I should be able to write a Music Management/Sync Software for iPod, but Apple actively prevents it.

My old vacuum cleaner only took Hoover bags, razors only take blades from their manufacturers. These sort of manufacturer's activities have been around a lot longer than either Apple or Microsoft.

Logical Fallacy Alert! Can we say appeal to the absurd? These are daily supplies costing pennies, not major purchases. That's like whining that you have to use American money in America. It's an irrelevant argument.

So, coupled with the obvious stance that Apple is not going to purchase a license to employ DRM Windows Media across the entire range of its products, and that they've had to use their own DRM solution — at first — to get the content producers on board to launch an outlet that supports their own devices, I think it's all fair game. Particularly as Sony and Microsoft tried and died with their own first attempts.

You can't hide behind DRM as an excuse. Apple slept with the Devil as did the rest of them by accepting the premise of DRM and allowing media companies to dictate the rules.

I see people all around me with all sorts of music players, not just iPods.

Again you are using Microsoft's argument. There are choices of other players, sure. But if I buy hardware from Apple, Apple locks me in to things that other players do not and tries to cripple my future choice by publishing purchases in a proprietary format.

I see Apple users locked out of all sorts of online services from banking to media distribution,

Well that is a choice these companies make to disregard Mac users as a serious customer base - in part this is the fault of Apple for sticking to a heavy-handed proprietary model.


I see my own work situation severely compromised because the IT team will not support or even enable our Mac network to be integrated with ours... that is where the true monopoly lies,

That has nothing to do with Monopolies, that has to do with cost to support Apple's systems. A company doesn't have to support YOUR preference for a computer. Live with it. There are serious costs involved with supporting Apple products in addition. Most companies just don't see the benefit of doing so.

What's so hard about hitting Apple+I/Ctrl+I/File>Get Info?

Oh changing all the files names because you have no control how they come into iTunes is real fun....NOT.

One assumes that's a PC, if so, yes I'd agree iTunes for Windows is ridiculously slow. I'm sure you know what the solution is. :p

Yeah the solution is for Apple to hire programmers that actually know how to program a powerful, resiliant application for the real world and fire the ones who don't. Apple applications have always been like a sick child you always need to keep a blanket on so they don't catch pneumonia.

The author of this article is either being deliberately obtuse or has no sense of perspective, even though in the end he confesses to supporting Apple.

Comparing the "forced" use of iTunes, one single application whose primary purpose is to interface with a piece of proprietery hardware, with the forced licensing of Microsoft Windows pushed by Microsoft onto its PC vendors?

I can reformat my PC and get rid of Windows but I can't reformat my iPod and install something else, and that makes Apple the bad guy?

No. That was the point of the article. Apple is using the same tactics as Microsoft. So either they are legitimate or illegitimate. The article says "Legitimate". But you can't have double-standards and praise one and trash another for the same thing.

[IJ Reilly]

This writer is utterly clueless about the reasons why Microsoft was branded a monopolist (or more accurately, was found to have violated antitrust laws). Bundling was not the problem. Microsoft's illegality was bundling for the purpose of obtaining an unfair competitive advantage over a competitor. In this case, Netscape. What unfair competitive advantage, and over whom, is Apple obtaining by bundling iTunes with iPods or iPhones? Good luck answering that question.

This guy makes the classic bogus argument that any company selling a proprietary product is a "monopolist." This is not, and never was, true.

[powderblue17]

You mean like Safari :p

Guess what. If you don't like Safari drag it to the trash, click on the trash can, and select emtpy trash. There you go. No more Safari. The problem with Microsoft wasn't that they bundled IE with Windows. It was that they made it impossible to remove it if someone didn't want it. I still think to this day that their is no uninstall option for Windows Movie Maker in XP.

[vanmacguy]

If you really read the article, which I thought was really good, the author is not bashing Apple at all. Nor is he bashing Microsoft.

What he's saying is that 10 years ago Microsoft had everyone hating them for doing what Apple are doing today, which is to use every tool they can to lock users in. They used software and hardware to accomplish that just as Apple does today.

But the real message is that Apple is not wrong for doing it today, and that Microsoft was not wrong for doing it then.

It's just good business practice.

For all those people jumping on the article thinking that it's beating up Apple, go back and read it again without your defensive hat on. He makes some really good points and it's one of the best articles that have come from a PC magazine in a long time.

And regarding his comment about iTunes, I think he was talking about iTunes on a PC, and if he was, I completely agree, it runs very poorly on my work PC but it flies on my Macs.

[Blue Velvet]

You're sounding like Microsoft ;) "Oh you can't separate it" Sure you can! I should be able to write a Music Management/Sync Software for iPod, but Apple actively prevents it.

In that case, you should be able to write a piece of software that lets you run your Xbox or Playstation games on a Mac, but there's plenty of people that will prevent that as well. Examples of this are everywhere, not just with Apple.


Logical Fallacy Alert! Can we say appeal to the absurd? These are daily supplies costing pennies, not major purchases. That's like whining that you have to use American money in America. It's an irrelevant argument.

Not irrelevant in the slightest. iTMS files cost pennies and you're not forced to use them. The principle is exactly the same. Same with many printer consumables.


But if I buy hardware from Apple, Apple locks me in to things that other players do not and tries to cripple my future choice by publishing purchases in a proprietary format.

What proprietary files? You can buy DRM free AAC files on the iTMS. AAC as a format is not proprietary. You can put MP3s on your iPod and you can do what I do, which is to buy CDs and rip them to the format of my choice. Once again, everyone does this, Apple is no exception. Let's just see how non-proprietary those Universal shows are when they turn up on Rupert Murdoch's and NBC's Hulu...


A company doesn't have to support YOUR preference for a computer. Live with it. There are serious costs involved with supporting Apple products in addition. Most companies just don't see the benefit of doing so.

When the Macs and those who use them are responsible for pushing out the approximate equivalent of $1,200,000 of design and print for corporate communications per year, I would argue there's a very good business case for supporting them. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

If you really read the article, which I thought was really good, the author is not bashing Apple at all. Nor is he bashing Microsoft.

What he's saying is that 10 years ago Microsoft had everyone hating them for doing what Apple are doing today, which is to use every tool they can to lock users in. They used software and hardware to accomplish that just as Apple does today.

But the real message is that Apple is not wrong for doing it today, and that Microsoft was not wrong for doing it then.

It's just good business practice.

For all those people jumping on the article thinking that it's beating up Apple, go back and read it again without your defensive hat on. He makes some really good points and it's one of the best articles that have come from a PC magazine in a long time.

And regarding his comment about iTunes, I think he was talking about iTunes on a PC, and if he was, I completely agree, it runs very poorly on my work PC but it flies on my Macs.

I don't care if they guy wants to bash Apple. That's not the point. The point, is, he's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Microsoft was convicted of violating antitrust laws for very specific reasons, none of which he's come within miles of demonstrating apply to Apple. He's just wrong on the facts, that's all. Completely wrong.

[powderblue17]

The author said the LG has a award winning touch keyboard but that isn't true. The LG never had a touch keyboard. It had some touch buttons but not a full keyboard.

[notjustjay]

No. That was the point of the article. Apple is using the same tactics as Microsoft. So either they are legitimate or illegitimate. The article says "Legitimate". But you can't have double-standards and praise one and trash another for the same thing.

OK, but let's at least not compare apples and oranges. The iPod, with its obviously proprietary embedded OS that obviously can't simply be changed out on a whim, is not at all like comparing to a standards-based PC where you have a choice of operating systems to install including Windows, Linux, etc.

Obviously with a device like the iPod, the software "lock in" is due to technological reasons, whereas Microsoft "forced" Windows upon people by way of political clout, vendor incentives and other such strong-arm tactics -- there was no technical reason why Dell could not sell you a PC devoid of a Windows OS other than their agreement with Microsoft forbid it.

There are lots of reasons to compare Apple and Microsoft to prove his point. This particular one just strikes me as completely disingenuous.

[vanmacguy]

I don't care if they guy wants to bash Apple. That's not the point. The point, is, he's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Microsoft was convicted of violating antitrust laws for very specific reasons, none of which he's come within miles of demonstrating apply to Apple. He's just wrong on the facts, that's all. Completely wrong.

Yep, I totally see your point of view.

My comment was that he is saying that some of the things Apple are doing today are similar (if not the same) as some of the things Microsoft did before. And that if we called foul on Microsoft, then we should call foul on Apple too.

And if I remember correctly, the big hoo-hah was because Netscape were charging (not regular folks, but if you were using it in a company you were 'supposed' to pay for it) for a browser that Microsoft gave away for free. But just because IE was installed (and couldn't be uninstalled) didn't mean you had to use it.

The same went for the Web server components, IIS was free and bundled whereas Netscape's Web server was not free.

I guess my comments come from back in the day when all this was going on, I felt the anger towards Microsoft was totally unfair. I've been in IT for almost 20 years now and was very vocal about all this back then, I didn't think it was monopolistic then and I don't now. And that's what I saw when I read his article.

[IJ Reilly]

My comment was that he is saying that some of the things Apple are doing today are similar (if not the same) as some of the things Microsoft did before. And that if we called foul on Microsoft, then we should call foul on Apple too.

This is precisely my problem with the argument. Microsoft was proven in court to have violated antitrust laws, and for some very specific reasons involving anticompetitive practices and retraining trade. Selling proprietary products was not one of them, and this is in effect all the writer of this article has against Apple. There's no harm, so there's no foul. The situations are completely dissimilar.

[Unspeaked]

Logical Fallacy Alert! Can we say appeal to the absurd? These are daily supplies costing pennies, not major purchases. That's like whining that you have to use American money in America. It's an irrelevant argument.

You must not be familiar with the Gillette line or razors and blades...

[GimmeSlack12]

Guess what. If you don't like Safari drag it to the trash, click on the trash can, and select emtpy trash. There you go. No more Safari. The problem with Microsoft wasn't that they bundled IE with Windows. It was that they made it impossible to remove it if someone didn't want it. I still think to this day that their is no uninstall option for Windows Movie Maker in XP.

Thank you.

[Unspeaked]

Guess what. If you don't like Safari drag it to the trash, click on the trash can, and select emtpy trash. There you go. No more Safari. The problem with Microsoft wasn't that they bundled IE with Windows. It was that they made it impossible to remove it if someone didn't want it. I still think to this day that their is no uninstall option for Windows Movie Maker in XP.

But if you trash Safari, how do you set your default web browser?

And if you trash Mail, how do you set your default mail app?

Also, both these applications will continue to be reinstalled (regardless of if I want them to or not) after various system updates...

[SupadudeX]

I stopped reading after this sentence.

"Can I reformat my iPod and install something else?"

The author is seriously retarded and knows nothing about computer software or computer systems.

Comparing the iPod, a freaking MP3 player to MS Windows is so stupid I threw up my lunch thinking about what ignorant human being is actually being paid to write articles like this with no perspective and no real insight.

All this article is is flame bait.

[zero2dash]

Oh changing all the files names because you have no control how they come into iTunes is real fun....NOT.

1) There's an option to not have it organize your library for you; look into it, it's under the preferences window and you would've found it if you spent 5 seconds looking for it.

2) YOU have problems with iTunes, that doesn't mean the rest of the world does or doesn't. My experience with iTunes has been a pleasant one. It's never crashed on me and it doesn't run slow unless you fart around the CoverFlow the whole time (which I don't). [On a 3 1/2 year old P4 3.0C with nearly 80 gigs/22,000 song mp3 collection here...XP Pro sp2]

3) Safari being bundled with OS X is nowhere near as bad as IE with Windows because IE is an extension of Explorer which is the GUI that Windows runs on; you can not remove IE fully from a Windows machine, 95 through Vista, period. You can remove IE shortcuts but I guaran-damn-tee you that if you open My Computer and type www.yahoo.com in the address bar, it'll load Yahoo.

If you trash Safari you are cut off from visiting websites without another browser; there is no back door to doing it in OS X without an actual browser therefore you are comparing apples to oranges in a quite uneducated fashion.


I have one problem with iTunes (the last few releases) and that is that backing up your library to DVD appears to be broken because iTunes will not realize you've put a DVD in the drive to burn onto no matter what you do. I had this issue, rolled back to a previous release (7.1 I believe) and I no longer have this issue.


And the article author is a complete moron if he believes that iTunes is required for using iPods because it's not; there are plugins for other media apps such as Winamp that allow you to sync an iPod with it [Winamp] therefore bypassing iTunes altogether. Why anyone with half a brain and an mp3 collection larger than two day's old wouldn't use iTunes is beyond me; iTunes is by far the best media library organizer I've ever used in my 20+ years of computer experience. Winamp or Windows Media Player loads a single song faster, sure, but if you do anything other than open songs one at a time, iTunes is the greatest thing since sliced bread IMO.

[IJ Reilly]

It does not matter if iTunes is or is not required for using an iPod or an iPhone, or if Safari is bundled with the OS. No trade is being restrained. Nobody is being harmed. Full stop. End of story.

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Apple, the new Microsoft (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070907171244)
Description:: none

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

[FJ218700]

I don't get the argument about iTunes being monopolistic, seeing as it works both on Macs AND PC's, plus, I do believe that CD's still account for 67% of all music sales.

[jephrey]

Simply, that's not a good article. Some arguments make sense, but they're still somewhat of a stretch. I could find more similarities between a piece of dung and microsoft that apple and microsoft.

J

[swingerofbirch]

There are a lot of closed systems. I have an LG phone through Verizon that has a music player. Not that I'd want to use it, but if I did, I'd have to buy the music from Verizon's over-the-air services, even though the phone technically should allow me to send any MP3 file I want to it over bluetooth--Verizon won't let me do that.

With Apple having offered iTunes Plus, it's hard to make a case they're purposefully trying to maintain a locked system. I think that DRM may have helped them somewhat at first, but I certainly don't think you can chalk up the success of the iPod only to DRM; the iPod has been a great player regardless, especially given that so many iPods are not filled with iTunes' DRM music anyway.

[Black Belt]

there was no technical reason why Dell could not sell you a PC devoid of a Windows OS other than their agreement with Microsoft forbid it.

Dell sells PCs with Linux, that is an untrue statement. But I can't buy a Dell with Mac OS on it, now can I.

[Black Belt]

1) There's an option to not have it organize your library for you; look into it, it's under the preferences window and you would've found it if you spent 5 seconds looking for it.

Well if you'd spent 5 seconds reading the post you see I wasn't talking about organizing. :rolleyes: All that does is arrange folders.


2) YOU have problems with iTunes, that doesn't mean the rest of the world does or doesn't. My experience with iTunes has been a pleasant one. It's never crashed on me and it doesn't run slow unless you fart around the CoverFlow the whole time (which I don't). [On a 3 1/2 year old P4 3.0C with nearly 80 gigs/22,000 song mp3 collection here...XP Pro sp2]

Well congratulations fancy pants. I use it on Windows everyday and I am far from alone. Heck , the problem is even published now in PC World for you to gaze upon brother.

3) Safari being bundled with OS X is nowhere near as bad as IE with Windows because IE is an extension of Explorer which is the GUI that Windows runs on; you can not remove IE fully from a Windows machine, 95 through Vista, period. You can remove IE shortcuts but I guaran-damn-tee you that if you open My Computer and type www.yahoo.com in the address bar, it'll load Yahoo.

Of course it will load Yahoo. You told it to. :rolleyes: No one surfs from My Computer. What planet are you on. You download Firefox or whatever you want, even that god-awful Safari now and use it. You were ALWAYS able to use whatever you want. That whole argument was specious.

If you trash Safari you are cut off from visiting websites without another browser; there is no back door to doing it in OS X without an actual browser therefore you are comparing apples to oranges in a quite uneducated fashion.

Until you apply an update as someone else pointed out and there it is back again.

And the article author is a complete moron if he believes that iTunes is required for using iPods because it's not; there are plugins for other media apps such as Winamp that allow you to sync an iPod with it [Winamp] therefore bypassing iTunes altogether. Why anyone with half a brain and an mp3 collection larger than two day's old wouldn't use iTunes is beyond me; iTunes is by far the best media library organizer I've ever used in my 20+ years of computer experience. Winamp or Windows Media Player loads a single song faster, sure, but if you do anything other than open songs one at a time, iTunes is the greatest thing since sliced bread IMO.

The only way to use all the functions of the iPod and receive hardware maintenance updates is to have iTunes installed. You can't get around it.

Now that we've had this "discussion" I agree. I like iTunes better than anything else out there. But that doesn't change the fact that it needs way better programming.

[Jim Campbell]

You obviously didn't read the article which is quite good.

Hmm ... I kinda lost interest when they suggested that you couldn't re-use iTunes purchased content in the (incredibly forced) example they cited.

As I have become increasingly tired of pointing out to people on fora across the internet when they bring up the "iTMS lock-in" argument:

Select iTunes purchased tracks. Burn to CD as audio. Re-import as MP3 using your software of choice. DRM gone.

Possibly not the easiest workaround in the history of computing, but it must be f*cking close.

Cheers

Jim

[IJ Reilly]

Besides, this is a problem with all DRM, not just iTunes DRM. Further, Apple has made it pretty clear that they'd prefer to sell music without DRM. It's the music companies who insist on it. Another conveniently overlooked fact.

[balamw]

DRM gone.

Possibly not the easiest workaround in the history of computing, but it must be f*cking close.

Exactly why Fairplay is palatable DRM, unlike the many variations of WMA DRM. This track can be burned, but that one can't. This one streamed, but that one not. This one will work on Zunes but not PlayForSure, ... This one can only be played 5 times, ... It's a mess.

The thing about Fairplay is that it is: 1) transparent 2) consistent 3) easily worked around if you can take some loss in quality or file size.

B

[Black Belt]

This is precisely my problem with the argument. Microsoft was proven in court to have violated antitrust laws, and for some very specific reasons involving anticompetitive practices and retraining trade. Selling proprietary products was not one of them, and this is in effect all the writer of this article has against Apple. There's no harm, so there's no foul. The situations are completely dissimilar.

Nice spin but no cigar. The "anticompetitive practices" are remarkably similar and probably more grievous. If we just compare software offerings, the bundling issue also exists as well as the more serious and more costly to the consumer issue of bundling hardware as well.

[Black Belt]

Besides, this is a problem with all DRM, not just iTunes DRM. Further, Apple has made it pretty clear that they'd prefer to sell music without DRM. It's the music companies who insist on it. Another conveniently overlooked fact.

The computer companies, Apple included, are as much to blame for the current situation with DRM. They should've said "Go stick it in your eye - We're the computer industry. We'll do what we damn well please and you'll like it if you want access to the entire world." But no, they had to cower and give in to those crooks.

I do appreciate what Steve is doing to get rid of DRM at least in online offerings. That is very much appreciated. I want no DRM on anything. I have no DRM on the CD's I buy. I don't want any on DVD's.

[Black Belt]

Exactly why Fairplay is palatable DRM,

Go wash your mouth out. There is no such thing.

[Jim Campbell]

My experience with iTunes has been a pleasant one.

iTunes user since v1.0 (... and had used Audion before that) and I have never had any issues with the software. There are rips in this library that are over eight years old ... I have CDs that have gone tits-up in less time.

Apple have not only redefined my relationship with music through iTunes, but they have actually enabled me to make my music collection more durable.

Cheers

Jim

[monke]

Once he acknowledges that Apple makes both Safari and iTunes for Mac and Windows, then we can talk.

Microsoft doesn't make their own hardware, except the 360 and the Zune. Do they let you install other OS's on them? They discourage it, obviously.

Apple keeps it this way so that they know that everything works. If cars we're made like PC's, they would come from 18 different companies. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Nice spin but no cigar. The "anticompetitive practices" are remarkably similar and probably more grievous. If we just compare software offerings, the bundling issue also exists as well as the more serious and more costly to the consumer issue of bundling hardware as well.

No, this is not "spin," it's the unvarnished truth. You may not understand/accept it, but what I said is true.

The computer companies, Apple included, are as much to blame for the current situation with DRM. They should've said "Go stick it in your eye - We're the computer industry. We'll do what we damn well please and you'll like it if you want access to the entire world." But no, they had to cower and give in to those crooks.

I do appreciate what Steve is doing to get rid of DRM at least in online offerings. That is very much appreciated. I want no DRM on anything. I have no DRM on the CD's I buy. I don't want any on DVD's.

Oh how short some memories can be. Some of us can't seem to recall the situation before Apple talked the music industry into even permitting downloads. And I don't know quite how to tell you this, so bluntly, what you want is not in the least bit relevant to this discussion.

[balamw]

Go wash your mouth out. There is no such thing.
I'm quite content with my iPod+iTunes+iTMS+:apple:TV experience, and Fairplay has not once gotten in my way of doing what I want with any tracks I've bought. This is a far cry from my experience with PlaysForSure and non-Apple MP3 players...

Plus, I know if I don't want to deal with DRM, I can just buy the CD in the first place and it's gone, but there are plenty of tracks where $0.99 for a single DRMed track is a good deal as long as it doesn't get in the way.

B

[Black Belt]

And I don't know quite how to tell you this, so bluntly, what you want is not in the least bit relevant to this discussion.

Neither is what you think apparently. :rolleyes:


Oh how short some memories can be. Some of us can't seem to recall the situation before Apple talked the music industry into even permitting downloads.

Sure, music was downloaded for free with no DRM, I remember. The music industry was over a barrel.

[IJ Reilly]

Neither is what you think apparently. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to stick to the subject, keep it factual, and not make it about my preferences.

Sure, music was downloaded for free with no DRM, I remember. The music industry was over a barrel.

Stealing. I remember that too.

[luminosity]

Apple has one thing that Microsoft rarely has had in its existence, and that's innovation. It's always innovating, consistently thinking outside the box and moving people and paradigms forward.

[walangij]

Apple has one thing that Microsoft rarely has had in its existence, and that's innovation. It's always innovating, consistently thinking outside the box and moving people and paradigms forward.

It looks like Microsoft is trying to innovate the only way it knows how, which is by purchasing smaller companies and using their innovations. I don't blame them for it b/c a behemoth like that is so bureaucratic it would be hard to manage. A lot of the stuff like Seadragon and Surface look fantastic. Apple's innovating strategy has been impressive, but their greatest innovation has been in their marketing, they market their "innovation" like no other company and they have the position to do it. A lot of their "innovations" are not really that in true definition, but just presented correctly like Multi-touch and their OSX.

Note: (but to note I'm a skeptic of any large corporation being truly innovative, they only innovate as much as they need to to stay on top and make the money, the smaller companies are the ones who try their best to innovate to get recognition)

Some of the points in the article do stick, such as iTMS DRM which has caused me to go back to CD's since the format doesn't work well in my car, and also even though iTunes is fantastic in my opinion, the older generation of people like my parents and such who learned Windows Media get frustrated w/ their iTunes just like I get frustrated with Windows Media (odd I guess).

As far as pop-culture is concerned these days though, Apple has the prominence of Microsoft in the past which is not always a good thing (and the iPhone complaints a few days ago was really disappointing since the general public -aka everyone at my university that didn't own an iPhone- found it hilarious) [But at least Apple responded].

[IJ Reilly]

Here's the bottom line from an old Apple-watcher:

If Apple fails, they are "beleaguered."

If they succeed, they are "monopolistic."

This shorthand has worked beautifully to avoid addressing reality for decades. Why should it stop now?

[Analog Kid]

Wow, talk about overreaching just so you can say you defend Apple... Apple is not a monopolist in the sense that Microsoft is-- they're even losing share in the MP3 player market. There's a million ways to get music and they all load onto the iPod. There's less trouble involved in stripping the DRM from iTunes music than there is in viewing a non IE compliant web page. Media has plenty of alternatives to iTunes including good old fashioned broadcast.

Silly, pointless and inflammatory capped with a "but it's all good". This was nothing more than a defense of Microsoft couched in a swipe at Apple.

Oh, and I have to comment on the stupid LG Prada phone... Won awards before the iPhone was released? All the sites I found were saying it won awards for its interface and "we have leaked pictures". I can't find any reference to it actually shipping yet, but it was supposed to be out in March so I'll assume the Hong Kong market has it by now, but suggesting Apple got its first phone ever to market in a few months by copying something that no one had seen is the height of absurdity.

And if Dad wants to keep his 300 songs and 50 movies, is too lazy to burn his music to CD, tell him to buy the stupid FM remote. It's cheaper than the $500 he spent on locked movie downloads...

[icecone]

You don't need to buy from iTunes store to listen from or iPod, nor must you need an iPod to buy from iTunes store.
You can simply use other music player/phone instead.
But for PC, you can switch to linux, but most people simply don't know it exists:rolleyes:

[Shotglass]

Some of his arguments were virtually non-existent. I liked the overall article, it's just that he needs to get his facts straight. And come on, cut them some slack. Everyone who buys a Mac knows he's getting a closed system. Hell, that's why I bought a Mac in the first place. Closed system = better integration, better usability, better everything. You just have to get over the fact that you have a choice and actually trust your favourite company that they do some good stuff once in a while.
Also, why on earth would someone buy any other MP3 player? Besides maybe Sony's walkman, I haven't seen a single proper alternative to the iPod that I would actually spend one dollar on.

[mcmarks]

The thing that people should really hate MS for is how they gained their market share. When WordPerfect was the best word processor on the market. MS sold this 2nd rate word processor called Word for $39. It was "good enough" so people bought it instead of $150 WordPerfect. Bye, bye WordPerfect. How much is Word now? This same tactic has been used with all their products. Sell a "good enough" version at a low price, kill the other business and then jack up the price. It's sort of like WalMart except WalMart doesn't raise prices like MS. Apple has never done this and continues to fight the media owners who want them to.

[MK2007]

The author of that article has a few fundamental points dead wrong.

First of all, 10 years ago users did not hate Microsoft as the author claims. It was more like 5 years ago. Their hate simply diminished but it still exists for various reasons.

His claim that Linux has replaced Windows because users have migrated to that OS is a very exaggerated claim. Its a well known fact that desktop Linux is more of a cult following than a mainstream trend. Every year or so the leadership of Linux changes to some new release. Without a real company behind it Linux on the desktop will never amount to anything. Good luck trying to convince users that a south African named operating system release "Ubuntu" is why they should erase Windows Vista from their hard drive. It will never happen.

As for Apple being a bully, the writer must be a newcomer to Macs. In the late 80's and early 90's a lot of potential customers hated Apple because of their pricing and unwillingness to license Mac OS to other vendors. As a result Apple's market share declined into the low single digits where it remains today.

[gazelleintense]

I don't get the argument about iTunes being monopolistic, seeing as it works both on Macs AND PC's, plus, I do believe that CD's still account for 67% of all music sales.


our public library has a link to downloading audiobooks online...

http://maryland.lib.overdrive.com

But being a mac user, I cant use it. the fine print says:

Format is WMA (Windows Media Audio). (Due to licensing issues between Apple and OverDrive these do not work with the iPod.)

[SPUY767]

What a schizophrenic hack job. This guy is bipolar or sosmething jumping from one far side of the battle to the other. A very poorly written article that leaves a lot of truths untold for the sake of argument.

[kwfl]

i have been using itunes for a long time
yes it is a bit heavy, especially for windows, but it never crashed.

[BenRoethig]

This guy does have a point. There is a huge double standard. When Microsoft keeps something like Direct X closed or gives Mac users a piece of software that isn't as good as what windows users get, Mac users are up in arms. When Apple stays proprietary, everyone cheers. When Apple was making razor thing profits and taking loses, having a closed system was a necessity for survival.

With the iPod, Apple is the clear leader. With the closed system a case can be made that it has an unfair advantage. If a user wants to use the songs he/she bought online, that user has no choice but to buy another iPod. If this were Microsoft in the same position, we'd be screaming for an anti-trust suit. Personally, I would rather allow other players to be iTunes/ .M4P compatible and have them chose the iPod because it is hands down the best option than it be the choice they are locked into.

[IJ Reilly]

A case can be made for almost anything. That does not make it true.

A lot of this was covered in the other thread on this article, but the essence is that the comparison is completely bogus. For an activity to be labeled monopolistic, it has to be demonstrated to have restrained competition in some substantial way. Somebody has to have been harmed. This is what Microsoft was found to have done. This writer hasn't provided any evidence for similar antitrust violations in Apple's case if only because he probably doesn't understand the first thing about the subject. So he commits the basic fallacy of arguing that proprietary is the same as monopolistic. This is not true, for reasons which I think are far too obvious to debate.

[Muzzway]

Dan Frakes of Macworld wrote a follow up.

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/09/notnewms/index.php

[jaw04005]

First of all, there is Rockbox, a free open-source operating system that runs on most iPods and MP3 devices. So, if you hate the iPod O/S that much, you are welcome to download an alternative.

And you do not have to use iTunes. I have friends that manage their iPod libraries using WINAMP. Also, there are commercial plug-ins available to allow you to sync your iPod using Windows Media Player (MGTEK, etc).

[IJ Reilly]

Dan Frakes of Macworld wrote a follow up.

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/09/notnewms/index.php

Kudos to Dan Frakes.

[dsnort]

With the closed system a case can be made that it has an unfair advantage. If a user wants to use the songs he/she bought online, that user has no choice but to buy another iPod.

Hmmm, no.
Songs purchased from iTunes can be burned to a CD, and the CD can then be ripped back into the player interface software of any other MP3 player. This gives any iTunes customer the ability to leave the iTunes/iPod platform and go to another without losing their music content.

[papadopolis1024]

How is apple locking people in.... I mean if you look at the numbers given at the last apple press event (the 5th of Sept.) it shows that for each copy of iTunes distributed there were only about 8 songs sold... How is that locking people in, you tell me. Now if the average person was buying more then 50 songs it would be more arguable.

[gnasher729]

I don't care if they guy wants to bash Apple. That's not the point. The point, is, he's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Microsoft was convicted of violating antitrust laws for very specific reasons, none of which he's come within miles of demonstrating apply to Apple. He's just wrong on the facts, that's all. Completely wrong.

Microsoft has also just now been caught paying for votes for the Swedish ISO committee (not that they did this only in Sweden, but in Sweden an email leaked out describing what they did). Which is just the kind of thing to get you anti trouble with antitrust laws again. And which comes at a bad time, since a decision about massive antitrust fines in Europe against Microsoft is close.

[gnasher729]

Here's the bottom line from an old Apple-watcher:

If Apple fails, they are "beleaguered."

If they succeed, they are "monopolistic."

Type "beleaguered" into Google. The first computer reference that comes up is "beleaguered Dell" :D

[gnasher729]

Nice spin but no cigar. The "anticompetitive practices" are remarkably similar and probably more grievous. If we just compare software offerings, the bundling issue also exists as well as the more serious and more costly to the consumer issue of bundling hardware as well.

You are very confused here. The iPod has a huge market share, but it has no chance to ever become a monopoly. The reason is: If you want to buy a portable music player, you are absolutely free to buy whichever one you prefer. The fact that so many iPods have been sold may be an indication that it is a good product, but it doesn't make any difference to your purchasing decision. People are forced to use Microsoft Office because others use it. But it doesn't make any difference what music player everyone else is using. You may not be able to copy music from my player to your player, but you are not allowed to do that anyway.

The cleverest move Apple has made was to use AAC in iTunes and in the iPod, which is more advanced than MP3. All the other manufacturers didn't support it, probably out of fear of Microsoft. Then came Zune, and Microsoft f***ed all their "partners" by using a new, incompatible DRM format, and - AAC. But now Creative has started using AAC as well in their players. They could have done this much earlier. There was nothing that kept them from doing this, except fear of Microsoft.

[gnasher729]

What proprietary files? You can buy DRM free AAC files on the iTMS. AAC as a format is not proprietary. You can put MP3s on your iPod and you can do what I do, which is to buy CDs and rip them to the format of my choice. Once again, everyone does this, Apple is no exception. Let's just see how non-proprietary those Universal shows are when they turn up on Rupert Murdoch's and NBC's Hulu...

AAC, the iTunes format of choice, also works on Microsoft's Zune and on the latest Creative players. So not only is AAC not proprietary, anyone can implement it if they want to. On the other hand, while Apple's DRM has never stopped working for anyone, Microsoft's Zune player does _not_ support Microsoft's own PlayForSure DRM.

[zero2dash]

Well if you'd spent 5 seconds reading the post you see I wasn't talking about organizing. :rolleyes: All that does is arrange folders.

...and not rename the files which is what you complained about in the first place.

Well congratulations fancy pants. I use it on Windows everyday and I am far from alone. Heck , the problem is even published now in PC World for you to gaze upon brother.

Yes because what PC World says is the law and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. :rolleyes:
I'll repeat what I said earlier: just because you don't like it or PC World or Bill Gates or anyone else doesn't mean that other people's experience with iTunes under Windows hasn't been sublime, as it has in my case + several other posters after mine. This falls into the phrase called "your mileage may vary". (YMMV)

Of course it will load Yahoo. You told it to. :rolleyes: No one surfs from My Computer. What planet are you on. You download Firefox or whatever you want, even that god-awful Safari now and use it. You were ALWAYS able to use whatever you want. That whole argument was specious.

The point I made was that it is possible to remove Safari from OS X but it is impossible to remove IE from Windows, which is the truth and I showed you why it's the truth. You can't load Yahoo from the Home folder under OS X, last time I checked.

But that doesn't change the fact that it needs way better programming.

Sure they could optimize CoverFlow, that's the only problem iTunes has. CoverFlow is a ram hog. I can leave iTunes open for a week under either of the other two views and ram use remains low. Open CoverFlow and let it scroll around for two minutes and ram usage goes through the roof. Since Apple's not patching other iTunes flaws (see also: my point about backing up library to DVD and why it doesn't work in the last few versions released), I doubt CoverFlow's ram problem will get better anytime soon, therefore I don't use CoverFlow.

[IJ Reilly]

Microsoft has also just now been caught paying for votes for the Swedish ISO committee (not that they did this only in Sweden, but in Sweden an email leaked out describing what they did). Which is just the kind of thing to get you anti trouble with antitrust laws again. And which comes at a bad time, since a decision about massive antitrust fines in Europe against Microsoft is close.

I don't know what incident you are referring to (a link would help) but either way I can't image what it's got to do with antitrust.

[CalBoy]

Neither is what you think apparently. :rolleyes:

I don't think you understand what anti-trust means. Microsoft used its position to prevent another company from doing business. Apple doesn't do that. You can buy a Zune if you wish, and use that "Marketplace." It's up to you. It's a little different with internet browsers and computers. Every MP3 player you buy will have to have support software; Apple's is simply called iTunes. By the logic presented in the article, Microsoft is guilty of anti-trust practices again because you can only use the Zune Marketplace with a Zune.


I also didn't like the article's mention of the Zune's "WiFi." As I recall, the Zune's WiFi only allows users to trade music between other Zunes. The iPod Touch allows full web browsing. The writer of that article needs to be better informed, as IJ Reilly points out.

[Blue Velvet]

Speaking of anti-trust, there's this piece I was just reading on Wired. The suits are still gunning...

Updated IPods Confirm Apple's Monopoly, Lawyers Say

The press was not alone in drooling over Apple's latest line of digital music players, unveiled Wednesday.

Lawyers suing the Cupertino, California-based gadget maker said the new devices bolster their antitrust case accusing Apple of trying to monopolize the markets for digital music players and online music sales.

"The inability of the new line to play competing formats is part of the case," said Gregory Weston, an attorney with one of the nation's premier class-action firms, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins of San Diego. "That is evidence that the company is acting like a monopolist and not competitive."
The class-action firm says that like their predecessors, Apple's latest iPods will not play music encoded in Microsoft's competing Windows Media Audio, or WMA, format.

Apple's players are capable of playing these files, but disables them with "crippleware" in order to force iPod and nano owners to buy songs from iTunes, the suit alleges.

Apple could license the WMA format from Microsoft for less than 2 cents per iPod, lawyers say, which would make iPods and iPhones, old and new, compatible with music purchased online from rivals like Wal-Mart, Napster, Best Buy, Yahoo and others.

Most downloads sold by those companies are WMA files wrapped with digital rights management, or DRM, codes that limit copying and set expiration dates on files from services that have monthly subscription charges.

Apple sets its iPhone and iPods apart by making its devices the only ones that play Apple's own protected digital format -- the FairPlay-modified Advanced Audio Coding, or AAC, format.

Apple uses the FairPlay format on most downloads from its iTunes Music Store, where more than 2 billion songs have been purchased.
Apple announced a range of new gadgets Wednesday, including the 16-GB iPod touch that resembles the iPhone, a 160-GB iPod classic and a new version of the iPod nano that plays videos.

Reporters dubbed the new gadgets "delicious," "elegant" and "stylish."
Weston, whose firm helped bring down Enron after disclosure of the energy company's accounting irregularities, labeled the devices "anticompetitive products."

Recently, large record companies and online music catalogs, including Apple's iTunes, have started experimenting with selling unprotected MP3s, which are playable on nearly all digital music devices, including Apple's.
Some online services that offer music from independent artists and smaller labels have sold unprotected files for years.

Harry First, a New York University antitrust expert, said the new line of iPods underscores that Apple hasn't changed course.
"But the unanswered question is whether what they are doing is exclusionary and anticompetitive," he said. "That is still the basic question."
Apple did not return messages seeking comment.

In court documents, Apple said demanding that the company work with competitors "may facilitate the supreme evil of antitrust: collusion."
"Forcing Apple to deal with rivals may lessen the incentive for Apple or rivals to innovate and invest in economically beneficial facilities," Apple wrote in court briefs. "It would require antitrust courts to act as central planners, identifying the proper price, quantity and other terms of dealing -- a role for which they are ill-suited."

A San Jose, California, federal judge ruled in December that the antitrust case representing a handful of Apple customers could proceed. Lawyers at Coughlin Stoia and other law firms are asking the court to turn the case into a class action representing millions of Apple customers.

The suit alleges Apple customers were economically harmed because, once they bought an iPod and purchased music at iTunes, they were locked forever into buying iPods.

ITunes FairPlay files can be converted into unprotected MP3s by first burning the protected files to a CD, then ripping that music from the disc into an unprotected format. Those files can then be played on a competing music player.

A decision on class-action status is pending. No court date has been set.
The case is The Apple IPod ITunes Antitrust Litigation, 05-00037.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/portablemusic/news/2007/09/wma_apple

[CalBoy]

Speaking of anti-trust, there's this piece I was just reading on Wired. The suits are still gunning...



http://www.wired.com/gadgets/portablemusic/news/2007/09/wma_apple

I'm sorry, but can't most files be converted into AAC? As far as I understood, you didn't have to buy your music from iTunes. What about CDs? I also recall, back when my iTunes was on an XP machine (dark days) that I had two copies of my music: one original, and one iTunes. Then again, this could have just been me, but it's not like it's impossible.

And what about the DRM free songs at $1.29? Something about this lawsuit stinks. Apple's margins on those sales aren't even all that high. If it was a true monopoly, people would be paying $3 per song or some high amount like that.

[fblack]

I also didn't like the article's mention of the Zune's "WiFi." As I recall, the Zune's WiFi only allows users to trade music between other Zunes. The iPod Touch allows full web browsing. The writer of that article needs to be better informed, as IJ Reilly points out.

Yep, it "squirts" a song from zune to zune and that's it.

Here's the bottom line from an old Apple-watcher:

If Apple fails, they are "beleaguered."

If they succeed, they are "monopolistic."

This shorthand has worked beautifully to avoid addressing reality for decades. Why should it stop now?

I'm with you there. Apple used to be every analyst's and dvorak lover wipping boy. Now that they have some success they are being compared to M$, which is B$.

[Black Belt;4148603]Logical Fallacy Alert! Can we say appeal to the absurd? These are daily supplies costing pennies, not major purchases. That's like whining that you have to use American money in America. It's an irrelevant argument.


Dude do you even shave? Blades for razors are expensive. Apple has been accused of using the reverse model sell cheap music/blades to fill expensive razors/iPods...

You can't hide behind DRM as an excuse. Apple slept with the Devil as did the rest of them by accepting the premise of DRM and allowing media companies to dictate the rules.


You mean Apple and the rest should have walked away from the table and offered no alternatives to pirating? :rolleyes: Where would they have gotten the legal content for the itunes store?

[RZetlin]

When 80% of the desktops are running Mac OS X, then I believe that Apple has a monopoly.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm sorry, but can't most files be converted into AAC? As far as I understood, you didn't have to buy your music from iTunes. What about CDs? I also recall, back when my iTunes was on an XP machine (dark days) that I had two copies of my music: one original, and one iTunes. Then again, this could have just been me, but it's not like it's impossible.

And what about the DRM free songs at $1.29? Something about this lawsuit stinks. Apple's margins on those sales aren't even all that high. If it was a true monopoly, people would be paying $3 per song or some high amount like that.

The term "monopoly" gets used too loosely in these discussions. Under antitrust law, it really doesn't mean anything. It is not illegal to operate a monopoly. In fact all proprietary products are government sanctioned and protected monopolies!

What we're really talking about is (1) achieving market power, and (2) using market power to restrain trade. These plaintiffs have a huge burden of proof. The have to show that Apple has the ability to bend the market to its will, and that they've used that power to create artificial barriers to competition. It took literally years for government lawyers to convince a court of both in the Microsoft antitrust case -- even when the evidence for both was voluminous. These guys don't have a legal prayer, if you ask me. They're probably hoping Apple will throw some money at them to make them go away.

At least they're asking the right questions, which the author of the article we were discussing is not.

[QuarterSwede]

The term "monopoly" gets used too loosely in these discussions. Under antitrust law, it really doesn't mean anything. It is not illegal to operate a monopoly. In fact all proprietary products are government sanctioned and protected monopolies!

What we're really talking about is (1) achieving market power, and (2) using market power to restrain trade. These plaintiffs have a huge burden of proof. The have to show that Apple has the ability to bend the market to its will, and that they've used that power to create artificial barriers to competition. It took literally years for government lawyers to convince a court of both in the Microsoft antitrust case -- even when the evidence for both was voluminous. These guys don't have a legal prayer, if you ask me. They're probably hoping Apple will throw some money at them to make them go away.

At least they're asking the right questions, which the author of the article we were discussing is not.
Thank You! One of the first things I was taught in one of my law classes is that there are two types of monopolies, one that legal and one that isn't. Most people don't understand that.

[IJ Reilly]

Thank You! One of the first things I was taught in one of my law classes is that there are two types of monopolies, one that legal and one that isn't. Most people don't understand that.

And, that monopoly is an economic concept, not a legal one.

It's also a board game from Parker Brothers. ;)

[zap2]

When 80% of the desktops are running Mac OS X, then I believe that Apple has a monopoly.

I'd still not believe there were a monopoly....20% of the market wouldn't be under Apple's power, meanning if Apple started charging 100USD to upgrade from 10.4.10 to 10.4.11, people could move to another OS.



I wouldn't say IE has a monopoly, although it has like 75% of the market.

[IJ Reilly]

Again, monopoly is the wrong word and the wrong concept. Market power can be exerted with under 50% market share in some markets. The issue is the power, and what can be done with the power. If a company has sufficient influence to manipulate markets and disadvantage competitors, and actually does so, then they may run afoul the antitrust laws. General Motors was faced with this accusation during the 1950s and I don't think they ever much exceeded 40% market share.

[CalBoy]

The term "monopoly" gets used too loosely in these discussions. Under antitrust law, it really doesn't mean anything. It is not illegal to operate a monopoly. In fact all proprietary products are government sanctioned and protected monopolies!

What we're really talking about is (1) achieving market power, and (2) using market power to restrain trade. These plaintiffs have a huge burden of proof. The have to show that Apple has the ability to bend the market to its will, and that they've used that power to create artificial barriers to competition. It took literally years for government lawyers to convince a court of both in the Microsoft antitrust case -- even when the evidence for both was voluminous. These guys don't have a legal prayer, if you ask me. They're probably hoping Apple will throw some money at them to make them go away.

At least they're asking the right questions, which the author of the article we were discussing is not.

I thought as much it didn't fit together. Thanks for the good explanation:)

[Sean Dempsey]

Apple is as much the new microsoft as Dell is the old Apple.

[AlmostThere]

I don't get the argument about iTunes being monopolistic, seeing as it works both on Macs AND PC's, plus, I do believe that CD's still account for 67% of all music sales.

Put yourself in the position of someone who is trying to open an online music store (with whatever selling point you like). You would, or should be, concerned about how people are going to listen to the music you are selling, and likely central to this is getting music onto portable players. iPods hold around 75% of the portable player market and almost everyone of those users will have iTunes installed on their computers. iTunes comes bundled with iTMS, Apple's own music store. Unless you are aiming for a niche market, compatibility with the iPod is a key issue.

As a potential competitor to iTMS, would you be concerned that Apple is bundling their music store along with their music player? Apple is the dominant force in portable music players (no problem, they make the best players) and the question is whether they are using this dominance to increase the barrier to entry for competitors into the market and assert their dominance when it comes to online music stores.

(I don't think the article really puts this across - it talks about bundling but starts talking about iTunes being a bit rubbish)

[luminosity]

Let's just step back ten years and survey the landscape around us then and now.

How many people then could have imagined that Apple would be cleaning up the competition the way it is today? How many people would have bet that it would have been out of business in ten years?

[CalBoy]

Apple is as much the new microsoft as Dell is the old Apple.

I don't know how I feel about that analogy. At least when Apple was going through its dark days, it didn't falsify earnings reports like Dell. Apple also doesn't go around forcing people to buy iPods for their businesses and forcing them to purchase a slightly newer version of its iPods every year or two. Microsoft was using its position to dictate terms to corporations and consumers alike. Quite different from the way Apple is selling its iPods.

[Benjamindaines]

This article is a load of crap, come to think of it... most of the articles posted recently are.

First of all the iTunes "monopoly", I hate to break it to you but that's what makes it work so well! Honestly, what is better for the consumer? An "Open Source" (yes I know letting it work with other apps doesn't make it open source but for conversational sake I will say that) player that will let you use multiple apps to load music on it or an app made by the same company that is set up to work seamlessly with it? I don't know about you, but I'll take the app that works over the freedom of choice any day.

Second, "Sorry Dad"... This is DRM my friend, nothing to do with the file type that iTunes uses as the article would have you believe. There are many players that will play AAC other than the iPod. And let's not forget AAC is not proprietary (MP3 is). And if you do happen to have a player that won't play AAC you can convert any non-protected AAC file to MP3 with iTunes.

While I do think that you should be able to load any MP3 (or AAC) file as a ring tone along with the option to buy a ring tone, I side with Jobs on this. Most cellphone companies will charge you upwards of 4 dollars for a ring tone that is crappy quality and expires. $1.98 for a high quality ring tone that never expires (and you can pick the 30 seconds you want) is a great deal. But again let me say, I would like to see the option to put your own files as ring tones like most other phones.

Copycat you say? Apple is a software company, they just happen to make the hardware it runs on to ensure it works properly. That being said there is very little "technology" that Apple has actually created (they are not a research lab), they just take the existing technology that others haven't used yet (or have used but Apple thinks they could do it better) and make a nice, simple package to bring it to the consumer. Also, it takes YEARS to develop a product, and we know that Apple likes to be very secretive about what they are doing so you can't take the time when each company announced what they are doing as measurement of who copied who. If LG announced a product there is no way that Apple could have created a new product to copy it that quickly.

Man I gotta stop reading these articles... :(

[Veritas&Equitas]

I was taught in one of my law classes...
Where'd you go to law school at? Just wondering...thanks

[LethalWolfe]

Good posts IJ. The term "monopoly" often gets abused and thrown around in a haphazard way.

Apple's built a very good mouse trap but they aren't doing things to hinder other companies from trying to build and market a better one.


Lethal

[Veritas&Equitas]

Apple's built a very good mouse trap but they aren't doing things to hinder other companies from trying to build and market a better one.

Well, that can be argued (which is why the district court didn't uphold the motion to dismiss). The issues concerning their treatment of WMA and other audio formats might be an issue. Using your argument, you could say that Microsoft wasn't doing anything to hinder other companies from trying to build and market a better OS.

Yours is too much of a blanket statement without knowing all the facts of the case...

[twoodcc]

i'd have to say that the arguments that he brings don't really hold all that much water. i could really get into this, but i think i better not

[IJ Reilly]

Well, that can be argued (which is why the district court didn't uphold the motion to dismiss). The issues concerning their treatment of WMA and other audio formats might be an issue. Using your argument, you could say that Microsoft wasn't doing anything to hinder other companies from trying to build and market a better OS.

Yours is too much of a blanket statement without knowing all the facts of the case...

I think we know quite a lot of facts, especially given what we knew about Microsoft going into the government's case against them. It took literally years and teams of Justice Department lawyers to prove antitrust law violations against them, when anybody who was interested to know, knew going in that Microsoft was as guilty as all get out. This case against Apple appears designed to squeeze some dough out of the company in a class action settlement, which as we know, in the end goes mainly to the lawyers.

It's my understanding of antitrust law that it's even more difficult to prove antitrust violations against a company when the allegedly damaged parties are consumers, not competitors, especially when those consumers clearly had a choice of competing products. I just don't see where they have an argument. Nobody has to buy their music from the iTMS, and they don't even need to buy an iPod to listen to their music if they do.

But as the old saying goes, when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither are on your side, argue like hell. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Well, that can be argued (which is why the district court didn't uphold the motion to dismiss). The issues concerning their treatment of WMA and other audio formats might be an issue. Using your argument, you could say that Microsoft wasn't doing anything to hinder other companies from trying to build and market a better OS.

Yours is too much of a blanket statement without knowing all the facts of the case...
Part of what got MS in trouble is that they were dictating terms to OEMs that were squeezing out the competition. Apple doesn't have OEMs so I'll use retailers instead. AFAIK Apple hasn't gone to retailers and said, "Hey, you need to stop selling other MP3 players or your iPod orders might go on back order."

What viable OS options did the consumer have 10-15 years ago? What viable MP3 player options does the consumer have today?

The same "customer for life" trap example Mike Elgan used in his editorial could be applied to many things. If I buy an Xbox 360 and it dies I have to get another 360 to play my library of games even if I'd rather get a Wii because of the controls. If I buy a Canon DSLR and some lenses I can't buy a Nikon later on and have my Canon lenses fit the Nikon body. Save for a few apps, including iTunes and Safari, users can't take their software w/them when if they move between Windows and Mac.

Like IJ has been saying, having a monopoly isn't in and of itself breaking the law.


Lethal

[Analog Kid]

The bundling of iTunes and the iPod is a market necessity. As long as the content providers insist on DRM in order to resell music over the net, music players will need to decode the DRM. Insisting that Apple pay to license another company's DRM is senseless. If WMA were an open standard, there may be more of an argument, but iPod supports the common open codecs for music (Ogg isn't what I'd consider "common").

A full system is required to get content through the 'Net and onto a music player. Apple has one such system, and there are others. All are closed. They aren't independent pieces. Apple isn't leveraging their music players to gain advantage in another market (such as their OS), as Microsoft was accused of doing with web platforms, office applications, etc, etc.

If the pieces were viewed differently, if iTunes were seen as a monopoly and Apple could be shown to be extending this advantage into music players, there might be cause to force licensing of FairPlay. As it stands, the EMI deal shows Apple's willingness to sell music compatible with other players, and Universal's move shows that there are alternative outlets.

[Black Belt]

Dude do you even shave? Blades for razors are expensive. Apple has been accused of using the reverse model sell cheap music/blades to fill expensive razors/iPods...

Are you older than 13? Blades cost nothing in the scheme of things. Sorry if you can't afford razor blades. Probably eats in to your allowance I'm sure. :p

....


The latest in Apple's oppressive practices are the limitations imposed on the ringtone feature, forcing you to buy the song from iTunes in order to make a ringtone. Editing a sound file is TRIVIAL. The fact that you are charged at all for ringtones for songs you own is a travesty. But to force an iTunes purchase down your throat on top of it is another example of the evil Apple. We want the nice Apple back, the one that looked out for users instead of trying to clip them for every buck in their wallet.

[contoursvt]

I will agree with you there too. I also have a Quad core box and while I dont have an ipod, I've tried itunes and personally, for me, I dont see the benefit of itunes. Its bloated and slow for an mp3 player. I manage my own mp3's in my own folders and like the control. Dont need a database or library associated with it. I just use winamp or mediaplayer. I'm old school I guess.


I have a Quadcore Speed Demon and iTunes is the slowest thing on my computer and it crashes far too much. That's just the truth of it. I agree that it is not "non-intuitive", I have never had a problem operating it, although it is terrible for manipulating the file info. If I had a choice and there was something better, I would definitely try it. But I don't have a choice.

[Blue Velvet]

The fact that you are charged at all for ringtones for songs you own is a travesty. But to force an iTunes purchase down your throat on top of it is another example of the evil Apple.

Ridiculous assertion. When you buy music, you do not 'own' it. It is not your right to do with it as you will. Go and read up on the basics of copyright and intellectual property law.

[CalBoy]

The latest in Apple's oppressive practices are the limitations imposed on the ringtone feature, forcing you to buy the song from iTunes in order to make a ringtone. Editing a sound file is TRIVIAL. The fact that you are charged at all for ringtones for songs you own is a travesty. But to force an iTunes purchase down your throat on top of it is another example of the evil Apple.

So I guess it's ok for every other cell phone company in the country to charge for ringtones:rolleyes:

Just because editing is trivial doesn't make it legal. It's quite easy to copy a DVD, but it makes it no less right. And, as I recall, no one forces people to buy ringtones. Sure we all want to have a few, but if you can't afford to buy a few (which again, costs money no matter who your provider is), then you probably shouldn't be worrying about buying an iPhone. Understand that Apple must get permission to sell the ringtone from the record label; what makes you think you should be allowed to do it without permission?

Ridiculous assertion. When you buy music, you do not 'own' it. It is not your right to do with it as you will. Go and read up on the basics of copyright and intellectual property law.

Frankly, hasn't this whole thread become ridiculous. Couldn't you just close it now? Pretty please?

[PCMacUser]

This kind of topic will always draw an emotional response from the Apple faithful.

All I can say is that Apple do make some good products, but there are things they do that I don't like. But they are a company with shareholders, and making money is their business. I have the ability as a consumer to go elsewhere, since I'm not emotionally or technically tied to the Apple brand.

My latest irritation though is the fact that Apple have done something to their online store which causes Firefox to crash when accessing it. This occurs on both Firefox for PC and Firefox for Mac. Guess what? You have to use Safari to use the store website... (although IE still works on a PC). Solution? Shop elsewhere.

[Dexists]

This kind of topic will always draw an emotional response from the Apple faithful.

My latest irritation though is the fact that Apple have done something to their online store which causes Firefox to crash when accessing it. This occurs on both Firefox for PC and Firefox for Mac. Guess what? You have to use Safari to use the store website... (although IE still works on a PC). Solution? Shop elsewhere.

Thank GOD someone else is having this problem. That is utterly ridiculous.

Apple's fan base is happy now because the ipod is the best player out there. However, I would advise all of them to stop purchasing their music from itunes and switch to a drm-free store if possible (or good old fashioned cds).. the moment a better player comes out, and it will, you'll all look like fools.

[IJ Reilly]

This kind of topic will always draw an emotional response from the Apple faithful.

The what?

[Black Belt]

So I guess it's ok for every other cell phone company in the country to charge for ringtones:rolleyes:

Of course not, it is even more offensive because it is even more expensive - often much more than the cost of the entire song itself!

Just because editing is trivial doesn't make it legal. It's quite easy to copy a DVD, but it makes it no less right. And, as I recall, no one forces people to buy ringtones.

Blah blah blah, no one forced any one to buy a computer either but that didn't stop people from whining about Microsoft. Again, the whole point of the article. Sorry you don't like the same standards applied to Apple.


Sure we all want to have a few, but if you can't afford to buy a few (which again, costs money no matter who your provider is), then you probably shouldn't be worrying about buying an iPhone.

Affording is not the point. I can "afford" it just fine. Being ripped off is another. I don't like ripoffs.

Understand that Apple must get permission to sell the ringtone from the record label; what makes you think you should be allowed to do it without permission?

I am not selling a ringtone. I am making personal use of the music I purchased. Copyright law allows me personal use, that's what gives me permission.

Frankly, hasn't this whole thread become ridiculous. Couldn't you just close it now? Pretty please?

Well don't post ridiculous things :rolleyes:

This kind of topic will always draw an emotional response from the Apple faithful.

All I can say is that Apple do make some good products, but there are things they do that I don't like. But they are a company with shareholders, and making money is their business. I have the ability as a consumer to go elsewhere, since I'm not emotionally or technically tied to the Apple brand.

My latest irritation though is the fact that Apple have done something to their online store which causes Firefox to crash when accessing it. This occurs on both Firefox for PC and Firefox for Mac. Guess what? You have to use Safari to use the store website... (although IE still works on a PC). Solution? Shop elsewhere.

I am not quite sure what you are saying about Firefox accessing the store. I thought you had to access it through iTunes. (Another attempt at "bundling" by Apple) but I do understand about it crashing. It's hellannoying. I just made up that word.

[IJ Reilly]

Blah blah blah, no one forced any one to buy a computer either but that didn't stop people from whining about Microsoft. Again, the whole point of the article. Sorry you don't like the same standards applied to Apple.

Microsoft violated the law. Nobody has provided even a shred of evidence that Apple has. That is the big difference which you don't seem to understand.

[Black Belt]

Ridiculous assertion. When you buy music, you do not 'own' it. It is not your right to do with it as you will. Go and read up on the basics of copyright and intellectual property law.

Maybe you should go read it and look up the big words. Personal use is an essential part of copyright law. You're drinking the Music and Movie Industry koolaid of demanding money but making the copy of music made on your retinas or eardrums illegal. I suggest defending your rights instead of putting on a blindfold and giving up your freedoms without even a comment. Even worse, throwing away your freedom to defend a corporations stock price.

[CalBoy]

Of course not, it is even more offensive because it is even more expensive - often much more than the cost of the entire song itself!

It's more expensive because it's serving a special purpose. The world is full of things which are more expensive even though you're receiving less. For example, a standard fridge costs less than a "short" fridge, even though the standard fridge is 3 or 4 cubic feet bigger. However, people still buy the "short" fridge because they want what it does (takes up less space). The same is true for ringtone buyers. You're probably in that vocal minority which can't seem to fathom the basics of economics.

Blah blah blah, no one forced any one to buy a computer either but that didn't stop people from whining about Microsoft. Again, the whole point of the article. Sorry you don't like the same standards applied to Apple.

A computer is a necessity in the modern day. Businesses, students, teachers, writers, lawyers, doctors, etc. all need computers in order to survive. You don't need a ringtone, and you don't need an iPhone.

Affording is not the point. I can "afford" it just fine. Being ripped off is another. I don't like ripoffs.

If you think it's a ripoff, don't buy a ringtone. It's really that simple. If enough people feel the way you do, prices will eventually drop because Apple will see flat sales. However, as I pointed out, most people won't think of it as a ripoff, and will buy it. I guess you'll just have to stick to another phone.

I am not selling a ringtone. I am making personal use of the music I purchased. Copyright law allows me personal use, that's what gives me permission.

No, they don't. Copyright laws are very strict. You don't have to be selling anything in order to be in violation of copyright. Look it up.

Well don't post ridiculous things :rolleyes:

Coming from the person who's just trying to find a way to make a circular argument around a topic he knows is dead. Face it, Apple isn't a monopoly, they aren't doing anything more egregious than other cell phone companies, and you don't have unlimited rights to music you paid 99 cents for.
I'm checking out of this pointless thread now. You can keep believing that Apple is out to get you and your money. I really don't care.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe you should go read it and look up the big words. Personal use is an essential part of copyright law. You're drinking the Music and Movie Industry koolaid of demanding money but making the copy of music made on your retinas or eardrums illegal. I suggest defending your rights instead of putting on a blindfold and giving up your freedoms without even a comment. Even worse, throwing away your freedom to defend a corporations stock price.

Use is not the same as ownership. Blue Velvet is right and you are wrong.

[Black Belt]

Microsoft violated the law. Nobody has provided even a shred of evidence that Apple has. That is the big difference which you don't seem to understand.

You don't seem to understand how "justice" works. Although there is ample evidence of many of the same things (clearly outlined in the article but Apple fanatics think that denial creates their own reality) nobody cares because Apple is insignificant to the big computer companies that drove the complaints so no worries mate. Yet again, (hoping repetition improves reading comprehension) the point of the article is trying to address the break from reality that Apple fans suffer in criticizing Microsoft and ignoring the grievous sins of Apple.

[CalBoy]

Use is not the same as ownership. Blue Velvet is right and you are wrong.

I feel for you, but I don't think this guy gets it. We'll just have to feel pity for him and move on.

[clevin]

I don't care if they guy wants to bash Apple. That's not the point. The point, is, he's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Microsoft was convicted of violating antitrust laws for very specific reasons, none of which he's come within miles of demonstrating apply to Apple. He's just wrong on the facts, that's all. Completely wrong.

law.... how nice, how many people jump on M$, bashing it for copying apple when apple couldn't file a lawsuit against M$ for copyright infringement.?

law.. how many people jump on Meizu, LG, NOKIA, bashing them for copying iPhone while apple can't bring up any lawsuit against them?

law.. how many users jump on Aopen for its miniPC, accusing Aopen of copying mac mini, while apple has no lawsuit against Aopen.

You don't need a lawsuit to argument some people is playing dirty. Big companies know how to walk on the border of the law.

if Law has final say.....OJS is clean.

[IJ Reilly]

law.... how nice, how many people jump on M$, bashing it for copying apple when apple couldn't file a lawsuit against M$ for copyright infringement.?

I don't know what you are driving at, but the antitrust suit against Microsoft had nothing to do with Apple, let alone, Microsoft copying Apple, so this statement appears to be completely irrelevant to the topic. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Apple (or any other company) has to be successfully sued by the government, other companies, or individuals, to prove to me that they've been engaging in unfair competition. What I am saying is that nobody who is arguing that Apple has been engaging in unfair competition has presented a single shred of evidence to this effect, in any way that the law actually understands. And if you don't use legal standards to judge this, then you're just inventing terminology for the convenience of your own argument.

[Qunchuy]

Well that is a choice these companies make to disregard Mac users as a serious customer base - in part this is the fault of Apple for sticking to a heavy-handed proprietary model.

The irony here is that in this case Apple is being blamed for sticking to a standards-based model. The companies who "choose" to support only the noncompliant Microsoft web browser are the ones who can change the situation. Without intentionally violating the standards in exactly the same poorly-documented way Microsoft does, Apple can't do anything about it.

[PCMacUser]

I am not quite sure what you are saying about Firefox accessing the store. I thought you had to access it through iTunes. (Another attempt at "bundling" by Apple) but I do understand about it crashing. It's hellannoying. I just made up that word.

I was talking about the website, not the iTunes store.

[jonnylink]

A lot of the complaints in the article are silly.

The "Sorry Dad" section esp. The fact that music from iTunes only works on an iPod is because of the DRM that *music labels* demanded they put on the files. And if I hear one more "well they could license FairPlay" I'll kill myself. If they license it FairPlay would be cracked six ways from Sunday before you can blink and then they'll have to keep patching to keep the music companies happy. Apple doesn't license it for the same reason they aren't letting folks develop apps for iPhone all willy-nilly: Security.

The copycat section is dumb too. I'd say OS X is the best operating system, but Apple didn't invent it. It's BSD for crying out loud. Apple innovates. They created a new product that integrated things and puts them in a beautiful package. Innovation. Putting all the iPhone's features into one pretty package was also innovation. No one else packaged all the things Apple has with the iPhone and there is no one phone that can match features and style of the iPhone, so it cant be called a copy. A copy is equal to or lesser than a current product on the market.

I'll end my rant there. This article is a summarization of a bunch of stupid points people make every now and then. I don't think any of them really hold water though. It seems like folks are trying to say that Apple isn't perfect (agreed) and therefore is secretly terrible (wrong).


Use is not the same as ownership. Blue Velvet is right and you are wrong.

This is off topic. Also, your using the word "use" which is interesting to me, since that is taking it even farther than record companies because "use" implies even fewer rights than "license" which itself is a new concept created by the record and movie companies. Content owners are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

[CalBoy]

This is off topic. Also, your using the word "use" which is interesting to me, since that is taking it even farther than record companies because "use" implies even fewer rights than "license" which itself is a new concept created by the record and movie companies. Content owners are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

He only posted that because of the OP's assertion in the beginning. It's the OP who's been off topic since the beginning.

[IJ Reilly]

This is off topic. Also, your using the word "use" which is interesting to me, since that is taking it even farther than record companies because "use" implies even fewer rights than "license" which itself is a new concept created by the record and movie companies. Content owners are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

I was responding to someone who brought up this term in the context of this discussion. I'll post that response right here, if you don't mind.

I agree, the "license" concept is essentially a new one foisted on us by the software publishers, but it isn't clear to me that it differs fundamentally from traditional intellectual property use restrictions. The point being, many people hold to the fallacy that if they own a copy of someone's intellectual property that they "should be able do whatever they want with it." This has never been true, for as long as there's been patents and copyrights.

[jonnylink]

He only posted that because of the OP's assertion in the beginning. It's the OP who's been off topic since the beginning.

Well that's ironic.

[CalBoy]

Well that's ironic.

Sure is. The OP seems to be using this thread as more of a "Apple wants money for things, so let me cry about it" thread.

[cliffjumper68]

Oh yeah. Ballmer would love to convince the world that's the case wouldn't he?

When I can watch Football League game highlights on my Mac and Windows users can't PC World will have a point. Until then, this is nothing but flamebaiting.

PC Mag might be feeling a bit threatened since the majority of their revenue comes from the dark side.