USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute [Archive] - Page 2

Eddyisgreat

Sep 23, 2009, 07:16 PM

They're not losing a $200 sale. No one's going to buy an iPhone just so they can get easy iTunes syncing.

But the people already happy with Palm/Blackberrys/whatever - they're locking them out of easy syncing. Apple is leaving money on the table - way more than 99c (you know anyone who ever only bought one song?). Wow indeed.

I understand the business need to protect their hardware, this just seems shortsighted in general, but par for the course for them I suppose. In this instance I agree Palm seem to have gone about this really really badly too.

That's cool I guess. Try using the Remote with anything (e.g. Plex) and see iTunes take over :(

If no one will buy a iPhone just for itunes syncing, or conversley, if no one buys a PRE for the supposed ability to sync with itunes, why the hell is palm fighting to the death in order to keep it running. If it was an afterthought they would have stopped after Apple slapped their hand the first time, but its pretty clear people are not happy with palm whose stock chart looks like an EKG printout every time Apple has a press release or a new version of iTunes.

The fact IS, Apple will make MORE MONEY by selling hardware and enhancing the aura around an all in one experience which means keeping COMPETITIVE devices OUT. You can say that Apple should stand on the merits of their other features and "play nice" with itunes, but then I would guess that you havn't gotten a business degree or if you have, you missed the class that talked about competitive edge.

This isn't about Apple's competitive practices so much as it is Jon Rubinstein trying to keep his hand in the cookie jar of a girl who has moved past him. Its kinda stalkerish if you ask me!

Mark Booth

Sep 23, 2009, 07:18 PM

This is SO anti-competitive, and I'm surprised the FCC doesn't have anything against it.

What is Apple doing that is stopping Palm from developing its own phone, its own media application and syncing software, and its own music and application store?

Answer: NOTHING!

Palm can compete all it wants. Except, of course, that the company was running on financial fumes when it released the Palm Pre. They probably barely had the financial resources to get THAT out the door, let alone pay someone to develop decent media software for the thing.

You want the lack of real competition these days, just take a look at the oil industry!

Mark

MacBram

Sep 23, 2009, 07:28 PM

Computers hate it when you anthropomorphise them.

Really, if one device I own happens to send a particular sequence of bits to another device I own in order to complete a task I want performed, all happening in the confines of my office, there is no "lying" taking place. It is irrelevant what some busybody feels about the bits that are sent, regardless of whether they have had a part building the equipment I have paid for.

Anyway, no sentience, no meaningful lie. I might as well argue that the wind is lying to the flower when, after a day's calm,a gust suddenly blows off its petals.

Your discussion of "lying" is just semantics. We could also say "stealing" is at issue, because Palm is benefiting "wrongfully" from Apples development and investment.

Now I can see what you are trying to argue: Where's the "wrong", where's the stealing or the lies when there is no person being lied to in my living room; it is happening in the privacy of my own home between two devices that I myself both own. What's the harm in Apple giving me a little more cause to be satisfied with their product, and helping things be a little more convenient for me? Afterall, I bought one of their products. Hey, it's all sunshine and roses and humming birds, no-one's getting hurt here. It's not like Steve Jobs walks in my house and I'm like, "hey dude, sign my, uh, iPod." And he's like, "sure, dude." Then he turns it over, and I'm like, "oh yeah, that; yeah, they did make one with a keyboard when you were kinda sick." What do you take me for, a real liar or something?

Well, that is a little self-centred. Like everything we use should just work out to our own personal convenience, and the people who make things should be looking at extra ways to help us feel the love, even to find alternatives to their products. Good grief.

I use various kinds of coffee when the mood strikes me. One day it's Douwe Egberts, another day maybe I use Illy or LaVazza. Hey I own the coffee, I drink it all in the same place; I use the same coffee mug everyday. I can even mix them in one mug. One big happy coffee family in my house (notice the anthropomorphism), it's a party.

So, for the life of me, I can't figure out why, when I cut the coupons off the packs, I inexplicably cannot redeem Douwe Egberts points and Illy points and LaVazza points all together toward one reward. I mean, hey, all the coffee is going in my mouth. I am enjoying all of it, myself. Why can't they let me get one big reward with all those different kinds of points? The points are all from buying my own coffee, that I am using in the privacy of my house. How dare they tell me what kind of coffee I can or cannot drink!

It's not fair, don't they know I would buy a whole load more coffee (of all kinds) if the points worked together? Maybe I would buy more Douwe Egberts, maybe I wouldn't. But I sure like the Douwe Egberts rewards and would choose their rewards over the others. DE are out to make my life miserable! They better accept my Illy points, or I am going to tell everyone what dirtbags DE are. The coupons are all just little pieces of paper, even if they have different logos on them. What's the big deal?

Why can't DE just be happy that I drink six cups a day and four of them were made by someone else? What does it really matter to them if they give me the full set of dishes or not? They would sure have one happy customer! Those DE dishes could be such a great selling point for Illy if DE played ball -- and imagine all the great karma DE would get!

I think I am entitled to the Douwe Egberts reward that you get for 100 000 points, eventhough I only bought enough DE coffee to receive 30 000 since I am drinking that amount of coffee altogether anyway. Hey, who do they think they are, anyway! The Coffee Police? Shoot, the more I write, the madder I am getting. I love my coffee. I love it I say. But if you deny me my DE dishes, why, why you are a stench in the nostrils of humanity. DE has trampled my rights and should be shot for their anthropomorphistic stance. Yeah, standing there, standing there with its hands in its pockets, thumbing its nose at me, like some kind of kitchen diva waving spotless white dishes at me. Yeah, you, you heard me. Waving those dishes, you.

kdarling

Sep 23, 2009, 08:49 PM

Why would Palm try and fight this battle publicly? Apple ALWAYS wins at public battles... I just don't understand why they would repeat another company's mistakes.

Apple doesn't always win public battles.

When Steve Jobs stole the best Apple employees to come with him to NeXT, Apple sued.

This made everyone take far more notice of NeXT, as Apple was "clearly worried" about what this upstart company could do to compete. It was free publicity for NeXT, and a black eye for Apple.

Eventually Apple quietly dropped the suit, because it backfired so badly.

Jobs will not have forgotten this lesson. Better to publicly ignore Palm.

All the yapping we do around here about USB-IF this, and USB id that, is quite shallow in comparison to how large companies and CEOs think.

charlituna

Sep 23, 2009, 11:42 PM

There's no reason to use a third party syncing method if a totally usable method has already been written and is easy to utilize. Palm did this with minimal effort, there is no reason to be so redundant.

well in that case, why should I bother studying for next week's big test when with minimal effort I can just cheat off of you, who will spend the whole weekend recopying your notes with fresh multicolor pens, quizzing yourself with flash cards etc.

Stratus Fear

Sep 23, 2009, 11:54 PM

Apple doesn't have to support any non-Apple devices (Palm supports the sync, and clearly makes updates to accommodate changes to iTunes), but as I said, iTunes would be a better product if more devices could sync natively. Apple actually does more work to tighten their authentication with Apple products than they would to just let others that have reverse-engineered the sync process keep doing it (which is to say, the latter takes no work at all). Their rationale for hardware-lock is transparent, and possibly runs afoul of anti-trust regulations.

You can say that but people who don't know any better will expect support from Apple. Even if they have to redirect them upon a support request, it still costs them time and resources to do so. Also, Apple isn't big enough in the market to be a trust; there are notable competitors. So, they don't fall under anti-trust regulation.

Much of the argument here has been predicated on the idea that Apple is just free to do whatever it wants with the interoperability of all of its products. This is true to an extent, but when they use their position in one market segment to leverage themselves in another, that's unfair competition.

I don't think anyone here has actually shown where they are doing this. People keep talking about the iTunes-iTunes Store tie, but with more and more music going DRM-free, this is no longer true. So what's the problem? Edit: I think you were probably talking more about the iTunes-iPod tie now that I think about it. Since iTunes Store music can be played on any AAC supporting device at the moment, then the only argument here is to open up a piece of FREE software required to use a device you can buy. This kind of thing happens all the time in this market, though. Since Apple was able to make their software good, it's called a competitive advantage. People seem to not like that, either, just because Apple happened to be successful at it. Palm should either get used to that, or make their own competing app.

The point of the MS-Netscape comparison wasn't that the two situations were comparable in all respects. The idea, however, that twisting vendors' arms to leverage their market position is materially different from using technical means to do so is bordering on silly. You say that Netscape "required" Windows (where it clearly did not), but isn't it just as true that the iTunes Store requires iTunes? The fact is that some 70% of digital music sales are attributed to the iTunes Store. Apple uses this fact to leverage their media players partially by forcing an inferior (more complex to set up, for instance) experience on iTunes users that don't use their hardware.

Somehow I completely brainfarted on the fact that it was available on Mac OS at the time too. Not sure what happened there. That being said, I think there is a material difference between strong-arming and implementing a technical block. Palm can still write whatever software they want regardless of what Apple does with iTunes. OEMs could not include Netscape with their machines where it drew the ire of Microsoft without severe repercussions, and there was little recourse but to turn to the government for Netscape. Palm is nowhere near needing to do this. Getting off their lazy asses and writing some damn library management software would be a great start, and is completely within their capability. Also, I don't believe the law says that the solution available from Apple has to be as convenient. Where you see the bolded part, for example -- Palm could, if they were actually motivated to do so, make an interface for their product that was even better than iTunes. Perhaps even marry it to one (http://www.rhapsody.com/) of the many other (http://www.napster.com/) stores (http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/b?ie=UTF8&node=163856011) available. It doesn't need to be the iTunes Store. Which would completely negate the need for iTunes anyway.

Complaining that Apple isn't playing nice when Palm isn't even trying really isn't an argument. It's not up to one competitor to better another's product. That completely goes against the formal definition and the spirit of competition. When Apple owns 95% of the market and is a significant barrier to entry to potential competitors like Microsoft was, then we'll talk. Until then, it's valid competition. Entitled whining needs to stop.

charlituna

Sep 23, 2009, 11:57 PM

iTunes is, however, a separate product from an iPod or iPhone. When people bring up anti-trust concerns, the issue is that Apple is using their position with a product in one market segment (digital music distribution and management) to protect their position in others (portable music players and portable phones). If iTunes was made by somebody else, they'd have a vested interest in being able to sync natively with as many devices as possible, and that's the anti-trust problem.

if you are correct and it was so clear an issue, Palm would have likely brought up the issue instead of just running to folks with no legal power. After all, the government is having fun going after Apple right now, tossing in some more anti-trust claims would just be icing on the cake (I'm sure Psystar would be happen to loan Palm a lawyer)

If a cop only ends up pulling you (and just you) over for speeding on a given day doesn't mean that the cop is targeting you, its only means that you are the only one that got caught by them.

Unless you are driving through rural Oklahoma with an Arkansas license plate the day after the Razorbacks creamed the Sooners on live TV. then you probably were being targeted.

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it.

As my Pappy used to say, when you only swim in the deep end you find a hell of a lot fewer warm spots.

Cerebrus' Maw

Sep 24, 2009, 12:14 AM

...

That's one of the reasons I hate "syncing". I'd rather just copy over stuff I want, and delete it from the device manually and independantely from my hard drive.

Just manually manage your ipod?

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 12:24 AM

(I'm sure Psystar would be happen to loan Palm a lawyer)

I think they need to actually pay their lawyers first... I understand that might be problematic. Of course their legal team isn’t doing much for Psystar right now anyway..:D

docholid

Sep 24, 2009, 01:50 AM

You can say that but people who don't know any better will expect support from Apple. Even if they have to redirect them upon a support request, it still costs them time and resources to do so. Also, Apple isn't big enough in the market to be a trust; there are notable competitors. So, they don't fall under anti-trust regulation.

If this is a real danger, it would already be happening with 3rd-party iTunes tie-ins. If the ability of the user to properly choose their support channel is so fragile, I don't see how it's going to be manifestly different if it's software interacting with iTunes and not hardware. In any event, I'd guess that the difference in support requests when two products you're using aren't playing nice and you've paid for one and got this other for free is quite large in favor of the product you paid for.

I don't know that I buy that Apple could not fall under anti-trust regulation in either digital music distribution or portable music players. By several accounts, they exceed 70% market share in both. This is well beyond what would be reasonably considered dominant. The iPhone isn't nearly so dominant. It seems a simple matter to draw the line between Apple changing a product in one market segment that they dominate to harm a competitor in one where they don't.

I don't think anyone here has actually shown where they are doing this. People keep talking about the iTunes-iTunes Store tie, but with more and more music going DRM-free, this is no longer true. So what's the problem? Edit: I think you were probably talking more about the iTunes-iPod tie now that I think about it. Since iTunes Store music can be played on any AAC supporting device at the moment, then the only argument here is to open up a piece of FREE software required to use a device you can buy. This kind of thing happens all the time in this market, though. Since Apple was able to make their software good, it's called a competitive advantage. People seem to not like that, either, just because Apple happened to be successful at it. Palm should either get used to that, or make their own competing app.

I'm talking about the iTunes-iTunes Store tie. The iTunes Store is a fantastically successful digital music distribution platform, and as far as I know you can't utilize it without iTunes. You can use the products you purchase outside of iTunes, but iTunes is the conduit you must use, and it happens to be a digital music management program, too. It's the de facto standard. Palm seemingly has no plans to compete with them when it comes to digital music distribution...why would they? The barrier to entry is enormous and Apple is extremely dominant. They do however want to complete in the mobile phone space. The essence of the argument is that Apple ought to let the iPhone compete directly, and not rely on breaking the interoperability of a different product (in a different market segment) to entrench the iPhone. Surely you'll say "but they can sync using the XML." Yes, but the crux of the matter is that this provides an inferior user experience. If somebody who didn't sell portable music players or portable phones ran the iTunes Store, they would attempt to offer the best experience for all users.

I think there is a material difference between strong-arming and implementing a technical block. Palm can still write whatever software they want regardless of what Apple does with iTunes. OEMs could not include Netscape with their machines where it drew the ire of Microsoft without severe repercussions, and there was little recourse but to turn to the government for Netscape. Palm is nowhere near needing to do this. Getting off their lazy asses and writing some damn library management software would be a great start, and is completely within their capability. Also, I don't believe the law says that the solution available from Apple has to be as convenient. Where you see the bolded part, for example -- Palm could, if they were actually motivated to do so, make an interface for their product that was even better than iTunes. Perhaps even marry it to one (http://www.rhapsody.com/) of the many other (http://www.napster.com/) stores (http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/b?ie=UTF8&node=163856011) available. It doesn't need to be the iTunes Store. Which would completely negate the need for iTunes anyway.

So Palm's solution is that they should use a digital music source that doesn't provide 70% of digital music in the market today? Is that the best solution for their users? The issue is that, if you're not using Apple hardware, Apple's not particularly concerned with your user experience when using iTunes. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

Complaining that Apple isn't playing nice when Palm isn't even trying really isn't an argument. It's not up to one competitor to better another's product. That completely goes against the formal definition and the spirit of competition. When Apple owns 95% of the market and is a significant barrier to entry to potential competitors like Microsoft was, then we'll talk. Until then, it's valid competition. Entitled whining needs to stop.

So 95% is the threshold? I'm sorry, but that's an absurd standard. You'll have to find some support for that kind of number. Just because 95% is well accepted as wielding undue market influence, and may be near what Windows has or does command, doesn't mean that it's anywhere near the lowest acceptable threshold.

duck apple

Sep 24, 2009, 02:26 AM

Sorry, I delete my improper comment.

cloudblood84

Sep 24, 2009, 03:36 AM

On behalf of many (if not most Pre users), we dont want this either. This is good news, and palm is being ridiculous. If we wanted seamless iTunes we would have iPhones.

sysiphus

Sep 24, 2009, 03:52 AM

Amazing that Palm thinks they have ground to stand on here. I'm not a fan of where Apple is going, and have personally decided that I'm done buying Apple products until I see a dramatic shift in corporate culture...but this time, Apple's got it right.

gnasher729

Sep 24, 2009, 04:01 AM

So Palm's solution is that they should use a digital music source that doesn't provide 70% of digital music in the market today? Is that the best solution for their users? The issue is that, if you're not using Apple hardware, Apple's not particularly concerned with your user experience when using iTunes. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

First, the iTunes music store doesn't provide 70% of digital music in the market today. It provides maybe 20%. The huge majority of digital music still comes from CDs.

Second, even if the iTunes music store did provide the huge majority of music, that would be no problem for Palm Pre users, because they are free to buy at any of the other stores, for example at Amazon. The iTunes music store and Amazon are competitors, you are free to buy from the competitor that serves you better.

Third, even if you bought all your music from the iTunes Music Store, you are free to install it on your Palm Pre (except for music with DRM, where the music companies forced contracts on Apple that don't allow either you or Apple to copy the music onto a device that isn't an iPod). Apple doesn't prevent that in any way. Apple just doesn't write software to do it.

Apple wrote an application (iTunes) that rips CDs, organises your music and videos, plays your music and videos, and downloads music from the iTunes Music Store. All these features are available to anybody, including Palm Pre users. In addition, iTunes downloads applications from the iPhone application store, syncs music from your music library to iPods and iPhones, syncs applications to iPhones and iPod touch, and manages and installs software updates to Apple products. This part is specifically made for users of Apple products. Other manufacturers are free to compete with Apple by building better devices and writing better syncing software.

KnightWRX

Sep 24, 2009, 04:03 AM

Just manually manage your ipod?

Instead of just quoting a single part, you'll notice that's exactly what I said I did. However, iTunes doesn't default to this behavior and it confuses many people that are used to manually managing their music at first.

Surely you'll say "but they can sync using the XML." Yes, but the crux of the matter is that this provides an inferior user experience. If somebody who didn't sell portable music players or portable phones ran the iTunes Store, they would attempt to offer the best experience for all users.

I got news for you. If Apple were to run the iTunes store but not sell iPods or iPhones, iTunes would have no syncing facility. Everyone would have to go through the "inferior method of using a vendor supplied app that reads in a XML file" :

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/blackberrymediasync1.jpg

Wow, look at all that inferiority. Seriously, he can sync playlists and songs, eject the device, set device options and all is about a single click away. :rolleyes:

So Palm's solution is that they should use a digital music source that doesn't provide 70% of digital music in the market today? Is that the best solution for their users? The issue is that, if you're not using Apple hardware, Apple's not particularly concerned with your user experience when using iTunes. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

That's not what the poster you're replying to said. He said if Palm is not happy with Apple's provided facilities, they are free to partner with another digital music store and use their facilities. They are also free to write Palm MediaSync like Blackberry did if they really want to use the iTunes stuff.

And who cares what the market share of your digital music store is ? Market share doesn't make it better or worse. If the artists you want are on there, either is fine.

Which brings us to your anti-trust claims. Market share has nothing to do with it. Monopolies are about 1 thing : market control. As it stands, Apple might have a big market share in media playing hardware and digital music distribution, but they don't control the market at all. You're not forced into buying an iPod to use content that is iPod exclusive, bought exclusively on the iTunes store. With DRM-free music being the norm now, any player that supports AAC can play back iTunes bought music. The iPod can playback MP3s, which are sold by other DRM free music vendors, so Apple isn't locking out other digital music stores from their hardware.

You can walk into Bestbuy and buy any number of different players from Sony, Samsung, Creative, Microsoft or any other brand you like. You can choose your player based on features that you like, in many shapes and colors. You can then go online and choose any store you like, or many stores to buy from. Apple has no control over the market. If tomorrow Apple were to start trying to bully people, they could just go elsewhere and no one would be wiser.

So it's disingenious to start foaming at the mouth asking for anti-trust litigation against Apple in this arena because they could prove competition is healthy in a heartbeat. They could just drag the DoJ and the judge assigned to the case to Bestbuy, pick up a Sony device, drag them all the way to the computer aisle, log into Amazon MP3, and buy some music for it on a HP Laptop.

gnasher729

Sep 24, 2009, 04:10 AM

iTunes is open. It requires a developer to parse an XML file and write their own sync. Many have done it without a problem.

Just a tiny addition: That XML file is not just any arbitrary XML file (and XML files can be quite hard to parse), it uses the "Property List" DTD which means it can be parsed with two lines of code into an NSDictionary or a CFDictionary, whatever you prefer. Two lines of code, that's it.

gnasher729

Sep 24, 2009, 04:20 AM

Just because you don't bother to look at logos on packaging doesn't mean vendors don't want the logo, and that vendors don't want all the other advantages of a working Plug-n-Play spec that others don't trample on for monetary gain at the expense of consumers and developers playing by the rules...

If you don't have a USB license, not only can't you use the logo (which many people wouldn't notice), you also can't mention that it is USB compatible, you can't say that it is USB compatible if asked. If Palm didn't have the license, and you went to a shop with the intent to buy a Palm Pre and asked "can I plug it into the USB port on my Macintosh", the sales person would have to say "No".

And the logo is very important: When you plug a USB cable into your MacBook, it's hard to know which way round, but the rule is simple: Always plug it in so that the USB logo is on the top. So if I have a cable without USB logo, that's really annoying.

duck apple

Sep 24, 2009, 04:25 AM

Here's what Steve has to say about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player. Do you really want to take that position?

I urge you to persuade Palm to disguise the Pre as Zune HD and see what happens.

hayesk

Sep 24, 2009, 09:43 AM

I wonder how much Apple paid the USF-IF.....

Wow, I hope you're joking.

hayesk

Sep 24, 2009, 09:44 AM

Someone at Palm listened to the string of logic they wanted to hear. Namely, a minute violation in the letter of the USB standard would allow them to piggybank off of Apple's ecosystem,

If you think this is minute then you really don't understand the implications of Palm's actions. The whole principle of USB's plug-and-play feature depends on unique vendor IDs. Imagine if HP decided they would use Canon's vendor IDs for their printers. Do you think the Canon drivers would just magically work with HP printers?

docholid

Sep 24, 2009, 09:50 AM

First, the iTunes music store doesn't provide 70% of digital music in the market today. It provides maybe 20%. The huge majority of digital music still comes from CDs.

That's just being deliberately obtuse. I mean 70% of online digital music distribution, and that's obvious. They sell more music than Best Buy.

Second, even if the iTunes music store did provide the huge majority of music, that would be no problem for Palm Pre users, because they are free to buy at any of the other stores, for example at Amazon. The iTunes music store and Amazon are competitors, you are free to buy from the competitor that serves you better.

The fact that the vast majority of online digital music comes from the iTunes store has the effect of making the iTunes software the de facto standard music management software. If the iTunes Store's market share is 70%, it's quite possible that the market share for iTunes, itself, is actually higher yet.

Third, even if you bought all your music from the iTunes Music Store, you are free to install it on your Palm Pre (except for music with DRM, where the music companies forced contracts on Apple that don't allow either you or Apple to copy the music onto a device that isn't an iPod). Apple doesn't prevent that in any way. Apple just doesn't write software to do it.

Leaving aside the "poor Apple" talk (they still thought it was okay to sell music with DRM), I thought the power of default settings was settled back in the browser fiasco. The iTunes Store sells 70% of online music, so iTunes is the default music management software, because you can't buy music on iTunes without it.

Apple wrote an application (iTunes) that rips CDs, organises your music and videos, plays your music and videos, and downloads music from the iTunes Music Store. All these features are available to anybody, including Palm Pre users. In addition, iTunes downloads applications from the iPhone application store, syncs music from your music library to iPods and iPhones, syncs applications to iPhones and iPod touch, and manages and installs software updates to Apple products. This part is specifically made for users of Apple products. Other manufacturers are free to compete with Apple by building better devices and writing better syncing software.

iTunes and the iTunes store are fantastically successful. Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to sync with iTunes (an ability which was developed without cost to Apple) to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent. If Microsoft tweaked Windows so that Boot Camp didn't work, the Apple community would be livid...but Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so why do they care? I'm no fan of Microsoft, believe me, but I'm not going to be a blind fan of Apple in all that they do, either. They're a company, and they sometimes do Bad Things in the name of profit. That being a company at all makes this their nature is of no consequence, we should be advocates for users wherever we find them.

rmhurdman

Sep 24, 2009, 10:09 AM

... But, unless Palm is the population from which the IQ has been normalized at 100, the average IQ at Palm will not be 100 (unless purely coincidentally)....

PS sorry for being boring.

Either it is purely coincidental, or they are terrible at hiring. Palm wouldn't be in this mess if their average IQ were higher than 100, I'm guessing. But at the same time, Palm is probably a big enough company that they will fit the bell curve.

And it's not really scary that half the population falls below the average; because of the bell shape, 2/3 are very close to the average. By definition.

Instead of typing "sorry for being boring", might I suggest clicking "cancel" instead of "post".

Stratus Fear

Sep 24, 2009, 10:16 AM

iTunes and the iTunes store are fantastically successful. Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to sync with iTunes (an ability which was developed without cost to Apple) to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent. If Microsoft tweaked Windows so that Boot Camp didn't work, the Apple community would be livid...but Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so why do they care? I'm no fan of Microsoft, believe me, but I'm not going to be a blind fan of Apple in all that they do, either. They're a company, and they sometimes do Bad Things in the name of profit. That being a company at all makes this their nature is of no consequence, we should be advocates for users wherever we find them.

3rd parties can sync with iTunes libraries. The law doesn't care about what is convenient and what isn't. For the matter of dangerous cross-market precedents...

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Mac OS X to protect the Mac is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install iPhone OS to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Sony Bravia firmware to protect the Bravia LCD HDTVs is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install WebOS to protect the Palm Pre is a dangerous cross-market precedent. (you can't install it on anything else, now can you?)

You also still have yet to prove that what Apple is doing is 1) not in the spirit of competition (forcing the competition to come up with their own, possibly unique ideas) 2) illegal and 3) that convenience factors are a matter of law.

iTunes doesn't cripple access to iTunes Store content for other players. And by this I mean impede -- copy files or using an XML sync program is easy enough. End of story.

docholid

Sep 24, 2009, 10:22 AM

I got news for you. If Apple were to run the iTunes store but not sell iPods or iPhones, iTunes would have no syncing facility. Everyone would have to go through the "inferior method of using a vendor supplied app that reads in a XML file" :

Wow, look at all that inferiority. Seriously, he can sync playlists and songs, eject the device, set device options and all is about a single click away. :rolleyes:

I'm dubious that you're correct about iTunes not offering native syncing if Apple didn't sell hardware. They would have an incentive to offer an open protocol that phone or portable media player vendors could use to sync with their hugely popular software.

It's primarily inferior because it's more complicated to set up. Never mind that most anybody in this forum likely has no problem with it, scores of people do have problems with the simplest of software configurations. Though I don't suppose that sync program actually manages the music library, though, hmm?

That's not what the poster you're replying to said. He said if Palm is not happy with Apple's provided facilities, they are free to partner with another digital music store and use their facilities. They are also free to write Palm MediaSync like Blackberry did if they really want to use the iTunes stuff.

Never mind that the users of other music distribution channels likely also use iTunes? The important point is that iTunes is a separate product with huge market share. Saying what is essentially "ignore it" is to defy the reality of the market.

And who cares what the market share of your digital music store is ? Market share doesn't make it better or worse. If the artists you want are on there, either is fine.

Which brings us to your anti-trust claims. Market share has nothing to do with it. Monopolies are about 1 thing : market control. As it stands, Apple might have a big market share in media playing hardware and digital music distribution, but they don't control the market at all. You're not forced into buying an iPod to use content that is iPod exclusive, bought exclusively on the iTunes store. With DRM-free music being the norm now, any player that supports AAC can play back iTunes bought music. The iPod can playback MP3s, which are sold by other DRM free music vendors, so Apple isn't locking out other digital music stores from their hardware.

You're saying that 70% market share in online digital music distribution doesn't confer any amount of market control? iTunes being the only way to buy music from the iTunes Store makes iTunes essentially the default music management software. The fact that only Apple hardware can sync with it natively gives a large advantage to Apple products in the minds of the largely computer-illiterate population.

So it's disingenious to start foaming at the mouth asking for anti-trust litigation against Apple in this arena because they could prove competition is healthy in a heartbeat. They could just drag the DoJ and the judge assigned to the case to Bestbuy, pick up a Sony device, drag them all the way to the computer aisle, log into Amazon MP3, and buy some music for it on a HP Laptop.

I rarely foam, thank you. I didn't ask for anti-trust litigation, either, I simply said that Apple's actions to bolster the iPhone could run afoul of anti-trust regulations, and explained why. It's rare that anti-trust litigation is a real winner, in any event. The underlying issue, as I see it, is whether the people here actually believe in the idea that leveraging dominant strength in one market to compete in another is a Bad Thing. I used to think that the answer would be "yes," but it seems to be "only if it's not Apple." In any event, your 'anti-trust counter-example' is rather silly. I could have purchased a Mac and downloaded Netscape at any time, but it doesn't prove that Microsoft didn't (doesn't) have any degree of market control.

Stratus Fear

Sep 24, 2009, 10:32 AM

It's primarily inferior because it's more complicated to set up. Never mind that most anybody in this forum likely has no problem with it, scores of people do have problems with the simplest of software configurations. Though I don't suppose that sync program actually manages the music library, though, hmm?

Where does this require, by law, that Apple provide direct access to the iTunes software for method of syncing?

You're saying that 70% market share in online digital music distribution doesn't confer any amount of market control? iTunes being the only way to buy music from the iTunes Store makes iTunes essentially the default music management software. The fact that only Apple hardware can sync with it natively gives a large advantage to Apple products in the minds of the largely computer-illiterate population.

Plenty of people use iTunes only to sync iPods and use something else for music management. Why is this impossible with other players in the other direction? Where is Apple's advantage of having created a uniquely innovative system and having it exclusively to themselves at the top level illegal? Oh, but Apple has 70% of the market. Surely competitors exist in that other 30%? Or is that other 30% just a black hole and Apple is pulling the wool over our eyes? Why isn't Microsoft in it deep for not providing things like Project, Visio, Outlook, and Access to non-Windows users of Office? They have about 90% of the OS market. Surely they're doing something illegal there?

Look, if you're going to assert something and expect others to not disagree, you better be able to back up what you've got with something other than mere suggestion and opinion. I don't care if you think Apple is doing something wrong. I care if they're actually doing something wrong. So far the evidence seems to be in the negative, not the affirmative.

docholid

Sep 24, 2009, 10:35 AM

3rd parties can sync with iTunes libraries. The law doesn't care about what is convenient and what isn't. For the matter of dangerous cross-market precedents...

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Mac OS X to protect the Mac is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install iPhone OS to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Sony Bravia firmware to protect the Bravia LCD HDTVs is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install WebOS to protect the Palm Pre is a dangerous cross-market precedent. (you can't install it on anything else, now can you?)

You also still have yet to prove that what Apple is doing is 1) not in the spirit of competition (forcing the competition to come up with their own, possibly unique ideas) 2) illegal and 3) that convenience factors are a matter of law.

iTunes doesn't cripple access to iTunes Store content for other players. And by this I mean impede -- copy files or using an XML sync program is easy enough. End of story.

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 10:41 AM

That's just being deliberately obtuse. I mean 70% of online digital music distribution, and that's obvious. They sell more music than Best Buy.
Doesn't matter. All it shows is that iTunes is really popular. There is still health competition. Somebody is always going to be popular. That doesn't prove much until they start using that position to prevent cometing music stores from existing. That is clearly not going on.

The fact that the vast majority of online digital music comes from the iTunes store has the effect of making the iTunes software the de facto standard music management software. If the iTunes Store's market share is 70%, it's quite possible that the market share for iTunes, itself, is actually higher yet.

Doesn't matter. It is perfectly legal to have a high market share.

Leaving aside the "poor Apple" talk (they still thought it was okay to sell music with DRM), I thought the power of default settings was settled back in the browser fiasco. The iTunes Store sells 70% of online music, so iTunes is the default music management software, because you can't buy music on iTunes without it.

Not quite. The Netscape problem was due to Microsoft abusing their market position to prevent competitors from doing business with Netscape. That's anti-competition since MS was trying to use their desktop market share to push the unrelated (at the time) web browser market. That's why MS has to sell Windows without IE. Default settings was argued as only one barrier to entry that MS imposed (exploiting user ignorance of software alternative). There is no law that stops a company from bundling software or locking software down. Microsoft's actions were based on its massive controlling market share and the absence of competition. The market that Apple is facing is far different (large number of music players, phones, and music retailers) which overall makes market share a les meaningful number.

Not to mention that high market share on its own is not illegal - there has to be deliberate action to control one unrelated market by use of another already dominant one.

iTunes and the iTunes store are fantastically successful. Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to sync with iTunes (an ability which was developed without cost to Apple) to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent.
Yes, iTunes is really popular. But there is nothing wrong with limiting the scope of your own software - happens all the time.

If Microsoft tweaked Windows so that Boot Camp didn't work, the Apple community would be livid...but Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so why do they care?

It would be very legal for MS to do that, however I don't see how they can do it. Of course we should point out that Microsoft has a business model to sell their software wherever they can. Apple's business model is very different and most importantly, very legal.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, believe me, but I'm not going to be a blind fan of Apple in all that they do, either. They're a company, and they sometimes do Bad Things in the name of profit. That being a company at all makes this their nature is of no consequence, we should be advocates for users wherever we find them.

It would be nice if things would work out the way we would like, but the world does not work that way. Apple as of right now, is not guilty of any crime whatsoever. Being restrictive and serving your own ends is not illegal unless a court finds otherwise. Apple doesn't want iTunes to be an open solution. People don't seem to care all that much. Until you can change people's minds on the issue, not much is going to change.

Stratus Fear

Sep 24, 2009, 10:42 AM

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

I think you're missing the point. Where's the market control? None of the others have a lot of market control, and when 30% of the market exists in competitors, 30% being a fair chunk, I don't think Apple does with iTunes either. Amazon, Napster, Rhapsody, as for music stores, these have been around for some time. Creative's Zen line, SanDisk Sansa, Microsoft's Zune, iRiver, Cowan, etc. etc. etc. have all been around for some time, as well. They aren't hurting from this at all, but Netscape clearly died a long time ago as a result of the Internet Explorer pack-in and exclusivity. Even government intervention didn't stop that. But really what is key here is the question: is a competitor is actively being hurt, even while making their own effort to compete fairly in said market? The answer for Palm is no. They've made no effort and clearly they would rather whine than do so, and the Pre is selling about as well as any random smartphone usually does.

And again, I'll ask a question: where does native iTunes syncing being locked to Apple products preclude Palm from doing the same with their own products (phone and music management software)? Or for that matter, going the route RIM did? The answer is that it doesn't preclude this at all.

docholid

Sep 24, 2009, 10:56 AM

Where does this require, by law, that Apple provide direct access to the iTunes software for method of syncing?

As an anti-trust matter it may require Apple to not make their market-dominant online digital music distribution system considerably easier to use with only their hardware, or to not proactively disable independently-derived syncing capability in a competitor's hardware.

Plenty of people use iTunes only to sync iPods and use something else for music management. Why is this impossible with other players in the other direction? Where is Apple's advantage of having created a uniquely innovative system and having it exclusively to themselves at the top level illegal? Oh, but Apple has 70% of the market. Surely competitors exist in that other 30%? Or is that other 30% just a black hole and Apple is pulling the wool over our eyes? Why isn't Microsoft in it deep for not providing things like Project, Visio, Outlook, and Access to non-Windows users of Office? They have about 90% of the OS market. Surely they're doing something illegal there?

Sure, plenty of people do, but 'plenty' is pretty subjective. I'd wager that not 10% of iTunes Store users do this. It's not as though 70% of online digital music consumers are iTunes Store only, but that 70% of the online music overall comes from iTunes. Even if the average iTunes Store consumer only downloads 70% of their music from Apple, they all have to have iTunes (even if you only download say 5% of your music from Apple), and that creates a default preference for iTunes as a music library manager.

I don't think I would mind if Microsoft was forced to divest the Office operation. Surely it would make for a more competitive marketplace. Their action may not run afoul of regulations simply because they're dominant in *both* office software and operating systems.

Look, if you're going to assert something and expect others to not disagree, you better be able to back up what you've got with something other than mere suggestion and opinion. I don't care if you think Apple is doing something wrong. I care if they're actually doing something wrong. So far the evidence seems to be in the negative, not the affirmative.

I thought that's what we were all doing, asserting our opinions? I'm certainly not an attorney well-versed in anti-trust law, and I suspect that neither are you. All we've really got are our opinions and fragments of things we've picked up on the Internet. I don't happen to be of the mind that 'wrong' and 'illegal' are congruent. It's well possible to be doing something wrong and not technically be illegal. All I've said is that I think it's *possibly* illegal (though unlikely to provoke legal action). I still think that it's wrong, and I don't think that we ought to applaud actions that adversely affect users just because it's Apple vs. some other company that we don't like as well. I'm well aware that this is very likely to be a minority opinion here.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 11:06 AM

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.
Anti-competition is an exception, but it is very difficult to prove these things. Of course when anti-competition goes on, that implies that little to no convenience exists. In the Netscape matter, convince was not the problem, it was Microsoft dictating terms to the market that barred entry for a major competitor.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.
True, however the key to market interference is how related the markets are. One can argue that syncing software market and hardware are very related.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

It may or may not be in the spirit of competition in some way, but closed systems are not illegal nor are they wrong on their own. iTunes is Apple's IP. They have the rights to control that in whatever legal way they want to. Simply controlling your IP though doesn't restrict competition. The public doesn't have a right to another persons IP without their explicit consent. Thats the basis of licensing. Bottom line is, Apple doesn't license iTunes like that and there is no law that says that Apple has to. Competition comes on a companies own virtues on a level playing field. Take iTunes out of the picture and look on a base hardware level. Both players have an equal entry point (both are USB devices). Apple doesn't prevent Palm's device from accessing the base hardware. In fact, I argue that hardware wise, they are treated quite identically until later software picks things up. Point is, Palm can connect, thus they can compete. Apple doesn't block Palms hardware device. Apple has a great property with iTunes - but like with the Zune software, it is not open.

Purely on a hardware basis, each device has an equally level ground. Software, maybe not so, but when you fight a duel, you have to bring two weapons. Palm is crying foul because Apple has a better gun and they don't have any. It looks as though you are calling Apple sort of a gun shop in this instance. They are not.

Bottom line - competition exists on the merits of your own products, not assuming that your competition is going to handicap themselves. Apple isn't stopping Palm from existing. It just doesn't want Palm to take away its dueling pistol that everyone knows they have. Palm is not trying to compete, they are complaining about Apple being unfair when it turns out that Palm is taking without permission. When you want to play with someones toys you ask. If the owner says no, you try and do better than them - not get the other kids toy taken from them. Palm needs to get its own toy and become popular. Thats competition.

Rodimus Prime

Sep 24, 2009, 11:14 AM

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 11:35 AM

As an anti-trust matter it may require Apple to not make their market-dominant online digital music distribution system considerably easier to use with only their hardware, or to not proactively disable independently-derived syncing capability in a competitor's hardware.

As I have said before, Anti-competition is a huge matter and is very difficult to prove which is why they rarely happen. It took MS having a 95%+ of the market for operating systems in a market where there was limited options (in both the OS and web browser market) before the government stepped in. Microsoft got off real light too and they didn't have to change anything of their most previous actions (like their heavily integrating of internet explorer into the OS to the extent that it could not be removed at all or splitting the company up, etc). With Apple, the case is very different, end users have lots of choices of media players, phones, and music vendors. Apple might be real popular, but unless you can show that Apple did not get that off their own merits in an environment of healthy competition, arguing anti-trust is a moot point. We might as well argue what would happen if the US suddenly became a monarchy.

Sure, plenty of people do, but 'plenty' is pretty subjective.
Ok...

I'd wager that not 10% of iTunes Store users do this.
Do you have a cite? Otherwise, you are just speculating.

It's not as though 70% of online digital music consumers are iTunes Store only, but that 70% of the online music overall comes from iTunes.
I would suppose that most people keep their CD collection in iTunes - thats what everybody argued back when Napster tried to pimp the value of their subscription based service by implied that everybody who had an iPod just used the iTunes store to fill it up with music. Critics argued that ignored the CD libraries that people had.

But it doesn't matter how much Apple sells unless we are arguing popularity. Nobody doubts popularity, but that is because people chose that system despite massive choices.

Even if the average iTunes Store consumer only downloads 70% of their music from Apple, they all have to have iTunes (even if you only download say 5% of your music from Apple), and that creates a default preference for iTunes as a music library manager.
That's a software limitation that Apple chose to do. Early on, it restricted people to the Mac since back in the day, the iPod only worked on Windows via clunky third party solutions (hey novel idea!). Thats why Apple decided to make iTunes cross platform - so they could compete with other vendors in selling music. Nowadays, people go out of their way on Windows to download iTunes (since its not pre-installed by anyone), install and use it despite the fact that their are even pre-loaded options (windows media player). The only systems that iTunes comes preloaded with are the Macs, however they are a small minority of the overall makeup of iTunes and iPod/iPhone users. That market exploded when the software and hardware reached Windows. It was a smart marketing move.

Second, having the user choose (I might add of their own volition) to have iTunes associate files is nothing new.

I don't think I would mind if Microsoft was forced to divest the Office operation. Surely it would make for a more competitive marketplace. Their action may not run afoul of regulations simply because they're dominant in *both* office software and operating systems.
I wouldn't mind either. Such an action was proposed back in the US v Microsoft, but that never happened. The anti-trust case ended up pretty dismal when you think of the settlement that Microsoft agreed to. There is a reason that these cases rarely happen - they are difficult to prove and carry out.

ftaok

Sep 24, 2009, 11:36 AM

Not sure if this has been mentioned or even if it's relevant ... but I'll put it out there for thought.

Can anyone confirm if older iTS music (with DRM) will load onto a Pre masquerading as an iPod?

Perhaps this is what Apple is trying to prevent from happening. The original terms of iTS purchases was that you could load to any number of iPods. If Pre's are pretending to be iPods and loading DRM'd songs onto the Pre is a violation of the terms Apple agreed to with the music labels, then wouldn't Apple be in violation?

Could it be that Apple has to make an effort to prevent these songs from loading onto non-iPods?

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 11:36 AM

Well the problem you are running in right now these apple fans are to blind to see it. Asking them to see the logic is like asking a Blind man to pick out a single Green apple out of a 100 Reds apples. Yes it is possible but it is very rare that it will happen.

Nice Ad hominum attack there. Way to dismiss your critics.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 11:42 AM

Can anyone confirm if older iTS music (with DRM) will load onto a Pre masquerading as an iPod?
Won't work - Apple hasn't licenses fairplay to other vendors.

Perhaps this is what Apple is trying to prevent from happening. The original terms of iTS purchases was that you could load to any number of iPods. If Pre's are pretending to be iPods and loading DRM'd songs onto the Pre is a violation of the terms Apple agreed to with the music labels, then wouldn't Apple be in violation?

Its possible, after all when you think about it, there are many things in iTunes that the pre and nobody else can ever use like the ringtones, the App store, or even the tons of video (TV, movie, Rental) content that Apple sells. Its certainly going to be tough to explain and placate users who are angry that Apple sold them a 15 dollar movie that didn't work with device X. Most people are not going to understand that Apple just can't give the content away like that due to third party agreements.

Could it be that Apple has to make an effort to prevent these songs from loading onto non-iPods?
Not much effort involved, Fairplay won't decrypt devices not armed with the decryption keys. Palm doesn't have that and can't get it without Apple giving them.

Rodimus Prime

Sep 24, 2009, 11:46 AM

Nice Ad hominum attack there. Way to dismiss your critics.

Say what you want but it holds fairly true about Apple Fanboys. They are blind follows of apple. They treat anything out of SJ mouth as the word of god.

ftaok

Sep 24, 2009, 11:47 AM

Won't work - Apple hasn't licenses fairplay to other vendors.I guess what I mean is ... will the file actually load onto the Pre. I realize that without Fairplay, it won't play. I'm wondering if just being able to load onto a non-iPod is a violation of Apple's agreement with the labels.

Its possible, after all when you think about it, there are many things in iTunes that the pre and nobody else can ever use like the ringtones, the App store, or even the tons of video (TV, movie, Rental) content that Apple sells. Its certainly going to be tough to explain and placate users who are angry that Apple sold them a 15 dollar movie that didn't work with device X. Most people are not going to understand that Apple just can't give the content away like that due to third party agreements.This is an interesting point. I can certainly understand Apple's reluctance to allow a 3rd party device from directly connecting to iTunes for this reason alone. It's not worth the headache dealing with the support of Pre (and other) users complaining that a TV show they bought won't work.

KnightWRX

Sep 24, 2009, 11:53 AM

The iTunes Store sells 70% of online music, so iTunes is the default music management software

Wrong. Online music distribution and music management software have nothing to do with each other.

Someone might just buy physical media and still need to manage it after it is ripped to a digital file format like mp3, wma or aac. The biggest Music retailer today is Wal-Mart. They sell both physical media and online mp3s.

As such, iTunes is not the default music management software, you'd have to do a survey to find out iTunes market share since it is not tied at all to online distribution of music. You can't even begin to associate both and draw conclusions from one for the other.

Your reasoning is flawed, so your conclusions are also flawed.

I'm dubious that you're correct about iTunes not offering native syncing if Apple didn't sell hardware. They would have an incentive to offer an open protocol that phone or portable media player vendors could use to sync with their hugely popular software.

Maybe the fact that iTunes didn't have syncing facilities until 2.0, which came out after the initial launch of the iPod might make you less dubious.

iTunes syncing is there because of the iPod. At first they did license it to other device vendors and iTunes 2.0 could sync to the iPod and a choice few other devices. The ability was removed after 4.0 because other vendors didn't keep Apple up to date and it was getting difficult to support.

Maybe read up a bit on Apple history before you start assuming you actually understand the facts behind it ?

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 11:57 AM

I guess what I mean is ... will the file actually load onto the Pre. I realize that without Fairplay, it won't play. I'm wondering if just being able to load onto a non-iPod is a violation of Apple's agreement with the labels.

Ahh! I don't think they will. The way that I understand fairplay is that if the device is not authorized (or is even capable of authorization), file transfer will not occur. That prevents me from getting a bunch of my friends music on my iPhone - my phone isn't an authorized device. My guess is that any authorization one would attempt on the pre would fail because the device is physically incapable of being authorized in the first place. Just a guess though

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 12:03 PM

Wrong. Online music distribution and music management software have nothing to do with each other.

I would argue that they are related, but not explicitly though. If i purchase tracks from Amazon, I don't need any music management software, just playback software (an obvious technological requirement). DRM is a whole 'nother issue all together.

You are right, but Music management software is a logical, related extension of music distribution as a whole. its kind of silly to argue otherwise. Its not illegal to require a compatible sound card to play digital music any more than it is to require a CD player to play CD's.

czachorski

Sep 24, 2009, 12:09 PM

Say what you want but it holds fairly true about Apple Fanboys. They are blind follows of apple. They treat anything out of SJ mouth as the word of god.

I think that was true in the 90's (welcome to the last millennium, lol), when Apple products were going downhill and their user base was slipping. In the last 10 year or so, the rest of the populace has come around to see what most Apple fanbois knew all along - Apple makes great products and is more plugged into the end-user perspective than most anyone else around. Hard to debate when you look at the market share for iPods, iTunes, and the fast rising tide for Macs and iPhones.

It's also interesting to note that the debates and discussion as of late center around issues that are very bleeding-edge in terms of legal and technological precedent: Palm syncing to iTunes, Apple iPhone app store rejection policies and the google voice app, Psystar making clones, etc. As much as some people want to throw around the "Apple is being evil" and the "fanbois always eat out of Jobs' hand" monikers, the issues at hand are much more complex these days, and a few may even pave new ground for IP protection, licensing, FCC policy and tech laws.

KnightWRX

Sep 24, 2009, 12:10 PM

I would argue that they are related, but not explicitly though. If i purchase tracks from Amazon, I don't need any music management software, just playback software (an obvious technological requirement). DRM is a whole 'nother issue all together.

You are right, but Music management software is a logical, related extension of music distribution as a whole. its kind of silly to argue otherwise. Its not illegal to require a compatible sound card to play digital music any more than it is to require a CD player to play CD's.

The fact is, you can have music to manage without ever buying a single track online (ripping only physical CDs) and you can buy music online and only leave the tracks littered in a folder, just using playback software to listen to it.

Both are unrelated. Music management has nothing to do with how it is distributed, it is distribution agnostic. Music distribution has nothing to do with how it is managed. It is management agnostic.

However, with easyness of access to music comes an increase in quantiy of music acquired which results in a need to manage said music. However, saying the iTMS has 70% market share so iTunes has 70% market share is disingenious at best.

dejo

Sep 24, 2009, 12:15 PM

The biggest Music retailer today is Wal-Mart
Actually, since April of 2008, according to NPD (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/03itunes.html), iTunes has been the #1 music retailer in the US (including CD sales), surpassing even Walmart. As of their latest report (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_090818.html), iTunes sells 25% of music sold.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 12:25 PM

The fact is, you can have music to manage without ever buying a single track online (ripping only physical CDs) and you can buy music online and only leave the tracks littered in a folder, just using playback software to listen to it.
*Grin* back in my Windows days when I was using WinAmp for playback (I don't remember if I had an iPod back them but it was defiantly before I had access to iTunes) I did exactly that. It was a pain for organization purposes, but it worked well enough

Both are unrelated. Music management has nothing to do with how it is distributed, it is distribution agnostic. Music distribution has nothing to do with how it is managed. It is management agnostic.
They are separate markets for sure, but you cannot deny that nowadays they are tenuously related since most music management is done through dedicated software. But that is neither here nor there. Music management software is not required for distribution. It can make said distribution more convenient, but nobody complained when Microsoft was doing it with Windows Media Player and Plays For Sure. Too bad that MS botched it up despite market share.

However, with easyness of access to music comes an increase in quantiy of music acquired which results in a need to manage said music. However, saying the iTMS has 70% market share so iTunes has 70% market share is disingenious at best.
Exactly. All tossing 70% around proves is that iTunes is really popular which nobody doubts. Music distribution is huge overall and Apple is just one player.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 12:29 PM

Actually, since April of 2008, according to NPD (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/03itunes.html), iTunes has been the #1 music retailer in the US (including CD sales), surpassing even Walmart. As of their latest report (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_090818.html), iTunes sells 25% of music sold.

I think this quote for your link is telling:
According to The NPD Group, a leading market research (http://www.npd.com/) company, while CDs remain the most popular format for paid music purchases, digital music sales are making up an ever-greater share of U.S. music sales. CDs comprised 65 percent of all music sold in the first half of 2009 compared to paid digital downloads, which comprised 35 percent of music sales.

This is competition at work, over half the market of music sales alone are products that Apple competes with (CD's). I see the air out of another anti-trust argument balloon.

Stratus Fear

Sep 24, 2009, 12:31 PM

Well the problem you are running in right now these apple fans are to blind to see it. Asking them to see the logic is like asking a Blind man to pick out a single Green apple out of a 100 Reds apples. Yes it is possible but it is very rare that it will happen.

Except for the fact that there is little logic and a lot of emotion. Calling "Apple fanboy" is like calling "Nazi." It doesn't belong in this discussion. It's an ad hom.

dejo

Sep 24, 2009, 12:36 PM

This is competition at work, over half the market of music sales alone are products that Apple competes with (CD's). I see the air out of another anti-trust argument balloon.
Yeah, I agree. I didn't mean to counter the whole argument. Just that one particular statement.

BaldiMac

Sep 24, 2009, 12:44 PM

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

And you clearly don't understand what you just posted. The only significant market that Apple has a large enough market share to be labeled dominant is the digital music player market. And as that market is opening up to competition from smartphone growth (not many people carry an iPod and iPhone), Apple's "dominance" of the market is receding.

Your implication seems to be that their 70% market share in the legal, online digital music download market is another such market. But they compete in digital music sales not only with CD retailers but also with illegal file sharing.

Regardless, they are not leveraging either of these markets in the Palm Pre syncing situation. Palm has unhindered access to iTunes+ music purchased from the iTunes Store. The only "market" that Apple is "leveraging" is the highly contested and valuable "free media sync software" market.

Not much effort involved, Fairplay won't decrypt devices not armed with the decryption keys. Palm doesn't have that and can't get it without Apple giving them.

Except through hacking. But no one would seriously consider that Palm would hack Apple software without permission. :D

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 12:53 PM

Yeah, I agree. I didn't mean to counter the whole argument. Just that one particular statement.
Right. It just seems that a large portion of this whole debate seems to surround arguments that what Apple is doing against Palm is somehow grounds for anti competitive actions where they seem to inevitable mention that Apple has some kind of monopoly in the music market (as if that was even reliant). I am not saying that you are countering the whole argument, just a big part of it.

The closest example that I can think of is the Psystar case where people were again screaming "Anti-competitive!" and "Microsoft part 2" when Psystar made a ridiculous argument that Apple had a monopoly in the "Mac Market". Complete bogus and yet people stil touted it after we calmly stated that "Mac computers" was not a relevant market and "computers" was. It even got tossed out in court and people still tried to argue it.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 12:55 PM

Except through hacking. But no one would seriously consider that Palm would hack Apple software without permission. :D

It would be interesting. Apple would have a really strong DMCA case against Palm if they tried it and the record labels would not be happy either. In other words, its plan B for Palm! :D

dejo

Sep 24, 2009, 01:02 PM

I am not saying that you are countering the whole argument, just a big part of it.
The fact that Apple iTunes is the #1 music retailer in the US but only sells 25% (which means 75% is sold by others) doesn't seem to me to counter a big part of the whole argument. It kinda supports it. That is, there is plenty of competition in music sales. I think we are trying to say the same thing but I am just not being very eloquent at it.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 01:09 PM

The fact that Apple iTunes is the #1 music retailer in the US but only sells 25% (which means 75% is sold by others) doesn't seem to me to counter a big part of the whole argument. It kinda supports it. That is, there is plenty of competition in music sales. I think we are trying to say the same thing but I am just not being very eloquent at it.
We are saying the same thing. The argument that I am countering is the silly notion of some kind of ant-competitive monopoly Apple is supposedly engaging in.

Your link showed that on a grand scale (namely CD's) Apple is not a dominant player - just in one particular segment of a while. Having 70% of digital sales and being the number one seller with a 25% market share shows that there is massive competition and the fact that Apple doesn't have anywhere near the power that people try to place. They are a big player, but they aren't the only one there.

KnightWRX

Sep 24, 2009, 01:27 PM

We are saying the same thing. The argument that I am countering is the silly notion of some kind of ant-competitive monopoly Apple is supposedly engaging in.

Exactly, the only guy arguing on the other side is docholid. But he's also tying iTunes' market share to iTMS' market share, so that goes to show you his level of comprehension of the whole thing.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 01:43 PM

Exactly, the only guy arguing on the other side is docholid.
Well to be fair, there have been tons of other people who have spouted such nonsense before. Really, the conclusions made by the USB consortium should have come to no surprise to anybody. Palm tried to be all huffy and cry to mommy that big scary Apple wasn't playing fair and they got punished instead when the IC found that Palm kicked sand in Apple's face and Apple fought back. It happens.

docholid

Sep 24, 2009, 03:19 PM

Exactly, the only guy arguing on the other side is docholid. But he's also tying iTunes' market share to iTMS' market share, so that goes to show you his level of comprehension of the whole thing.

Sigh. If you don't think there's a link between people using iTunes to manage music, the fact that the iTunes Store accounts for 25% of all music sales (and 70% of online music sales), and the fact that iTunes is the only way to actually download that music, then I don't know what to tell you. Are people able to choose other music management software? Absolutely. Are the likely to do so on average? No. There doesn't seem to be any survey data that tells us either way that I can find, but you seem confident that a great many people turn away from iTunes just because there's a variety of anecdotal evidence among people who comment in forums like these that they do. That's not anything like a reasonable sample.

If we just look at the other side of the equation, Apple also enjoys broad dominance in portable media players (I believe some 70%+ as well). All of these people at least have iTunes as well. So, with tight integration with both the iTunes Store and the established hardware base, iTunes is indispensable for a huge portion of the digital music userbase.

You can call me a crank if you like. It doesn't change the fact that Apple enjoys immense market power in music distribution at present. With sales of physical media receding, and other online distributors unable to make serious inroads thus far, their influence will likely increase. Coupled with their zeal for tight vertical integration, this is going to end up being bad for competition and bad for consumers.

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 03:32 PM

You can call me a crank if you like. It doesn't change the fact that Apple enjoys immense market power in music distribution at present.

If they only sell 25% of all the music out there it means they are really popular. It also means that 75% of all music is being sold in some other fashion. Their market power is not "immense". Not when there are still very heavy hitters in the market. Someone has to be the top dog and that happens to be Apple right now. That doesn't necessarily translate into anything else.

If we just look at the other side of the equation, Apple also enjoys broad dominance in portable media players (I believe some 70%+ as well)
None of which requires the iTunes music store to get that way. True, I have to have iTunes to actually make an iPod useful, but that is the case regardless of the player - a software layer has to exist somewhere.

So, with tight integration with both the iTunes Store and the established hardware base, iTunes is indispensable for a huge portion of the digital music userbase.

I (and many others) contend that this success is largely due to Apple getting the right (and legal) business model. The iPod did well because it was a well made player (even before iTunes crossed over to Windows). iTunes did well before the store because it was a quality player). The iTMS succeeded because it was a good business platform that customers liked.

That, to me sounds like Apple succeeded in a market based on its own merits by making a better mousetrap than everybody else. That is the goal of business.

BaldiMac

Sep 24, 2009, 03:38 PM

It doesn't change the fact that Apple enjoys immense market power in music distribution at present. With sales of physical media receding, and other online distributors unable to make serious inroads thus far, their influence will likely increase.

25% market share in the legal music distribution market does not equal "immense market power" in the terms of antitrust law. And that percentage ignores significant competition from illegal file sharing.

And, again, Apple is not leveraging their music market share in this situation. Apple does not prevent anyone from accessing music and playlists within iTunes. There is no barrier to competition. Palm can come in tomorrow with a competitor to iTunes.

Coupled with their zeal for tight vertical integration, this is going to end up being bad for competition and bad for consumers.

Why is it bad for consumers to have the option to choose a vertically integrated model?

cumanzor

Sep 24, 2009, 04:22 PM

Ad hominum

You are joking, aren't you?

pdjudd

Sep 24, 2009, 04:50 PM

You are joking, aren't you?
No, calling people names just to dismiss them is a ad hominum attack. It also is bad form.

czachorski

Sep 24, 2009, 06:51 PM

Sigh. If you don't think there's a link between people using iTunes to manage music, the fact that the iTunes Store accounts for 25% of all music sales (and 70% of online music sales), and the fact that iTunes is the only way to actually download that music, then I don't know what to tell you.

The bolded part is factually incorrect. I and millions of others legally buy and download music from Amazon all the time, bring it into iTunes, and play it on our iPods. Amazon even has a nifty little free app (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200154260) that makes the process easy.

charlituna

Sep 24, 2009, 11:30 PM

You're not forced into buying an iPod to use content that is iPod exclusive, bought exclusively on the iTunes store. With DRM-free music being the norm now, any player that supports AAC can play back iTunes bought music.

I'm listening to an album I just bought on the itunes store 20 minutes ago and I'm not using an ipod.

and not only that, but I can use any number of programs to take a track and convert it within minutes to any form I want. mp3, wav, wma, whatever. play it on anything.

TiggsPanther

Sep 25, 2009, 02:15 AM

Why is it bad for consumers to have the option to choose a vertically integrated model?

This is something I want to ask every time people criticise Apple's business model or product lineup.

Do I think Apple is the best, friendliest, most perfect commpany? Hell, no. Are there things I wish they did differently? Definitely?
But despite all this, I (personally) find that their products work well precisely because of how Apple do them.

I like that iPod/iTunes is a tightly integrated system. There are other (probably better) ways of music management, playback and synchronisation out there. But I find that the whole package works together really well. If I repalce my iPod with a non iPod (or sart using my music on my PSP or G1 phone), i'll have to find another way of syncing. So be it. (DoubleTwist looks interesting - I may well look into t for my other gadgets.)

I think that, despite the limited mac lineup, the Mac works so well for me because I've had far less of the crashes and compatibility/stability niggles that I deal with when I use Windows or Linux.
And yes, I use all three operating systems regularly. Windows for universal compatibility. Linux as it is totally open. Mac for greater stabilty and overall better experience. (Not 100% perfect, and not without some pet peeves - I want an iPod with a physical offswitch dammit... But simply "better" in my eyes.)

To me, the "closed system" is a choice. To be used instead or or even as well as more open alternatives. People seem to think that "not use it" is not a choice. But it is. Maybe not a preferable choice, but a chioce nonetheless.
Similarly, some of us choose the closed sysem (despite the flaws) because of something it brings. And to me, some of Apple's products work well precisely because they're so locked down. I weigh up the pros and cons. And I decided that the Apple pros outweigh the Apple cons.

Back to the thread (and comment I'm following up), I find the iPod works so well for me exactly because it's vertically integrated with iTunes. The whole package "just works" for my needs.
I made a choice for the closed-system option. So I don't get why the "but I want to be able to choose" people want to deny others the chance to choose it. Yes, it sucks if you want one aspect of the iFamily and not the rest. But there are other things out there. But all-in-one is a choice. And some of us actually appreciate it.