Antitrust Suit Against Apple Over iPod, iTunes to Proceed

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Feb 6, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1

    [​IMG]

    Category: News and Press Releases
    Link: Antitrust Suit Against Apple Over iPod, iTunes to Proceed
    Description:: Apple Computer Inc. must face several federal and state antitrust claims arising from the operation of its iTunes online music store and the sale of its iPod digital music players, a federal judge in California has ruled.

    Posted on MacBytes.com
    Approved by Mudbug
     
  2. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    Why? A majority does not a monopoly make. You can play iTunes songs in a CD player once you burn a CD. Or just play it on your computer. You don't need an iPod to play them. Similarly, you can use mp3, wav, aiff, and other file types on iPods. You don't need to use iTunes MS. You don't even need iTunes as there are other programs to put files on there. Works as an external hard drive too.

    So when are we going to get MS DRM for Macs? Same principle, right?
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #3
    Myth 1: Songs Purchased from iTunes Music Store can only be played on an iPod - False.
    The first album I purchased from ITMS I burned to CD and played in my truck - long before I purchased an iPod.

    Myth 2: iPod will only play songs Purchased from iTunes Music Store - False.
    I have my whole CD collection on my iPod. None of which was purchased from ITMS. Not to mention that ITMS did not exist when the iPod was first introduced.

    Myth 3: Apple has a monopoly - False.
    There is plenty of competition, they just suck.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #4
    I really don't see this suit going anywhere. Although I'm not a lawyer, I can't really see the case against Apple here.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #5
    Well first apple has a little more than a majority of the market. They have it pretty well corned. The apple iPod and iTMS each have 70+% of the market. Also you CAN do the cd burning ripping trick but that is a work around for the larger problem and average consumer does not know this (plus you are limited on the burn count you can do). You putting extra things the iPod can do. Also the iPod can not play music boughten from other music stores unless you do the work around thing.

    This law suit may fail but the fact is that it is only a matter of time before apple gets nailed for this and will have to change there pratices in the market. Apple is quickly becoming the M$ of the music store and portable players industry (that being in the terms of market share only.) And that means apple has to play be diffenernt rules than everyone else. I am intersted in how this is going to pan out.
     
  6. Moderator emeritus

    angelwatt

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    USA
  7. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #7
    I was wondering how long it would take before a tying suit came up. Apple's only hope here is that the precedents are somewhat contradictory.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #8
    Hopefully for apple. but I personly have been on the other side of the fence and have been wanting something like this to happen for a long time. (yes I would really only choose the iPod and iTMS right now. but I would like the option to get stuff from other music stores and I would like the opintion on when I replace my iPod to be able to buy something other than the iPod and still be able to play all the stuff from the iTMS on it with out jumping though a lot of hoops to make sure it worked.

    The case that show precedients agaist apple will be dealing with M$ windows and how that works. ruling when again M$ for abusing their power and the ruling can easily go agaist apple for abusing there raw market power they have right now. The power making it hard for new comers to get involved. A lot of manufactors dont want to make both a music store and a music player. They want to make one or the other. Because apple controls both very strongly it hard for a new player to enter. Now if it was just ipods vs other players apple would win. they are not abusing there power there. It just a good product. the problem comes with they 2 separt markets interfer with eachother and you use you power in one to control the other. Apple just doing it both ways. They use the fact they have a huge market share in each to make sure it stays that way.

    I hate to say it but I am hoping apples looses. I would love to see other players working with music from iTMS. (no the players dont have to work with iTunes. Just work with songs boughten though iTMS.) Same goes for the iPOD playing music from other music stores.

    Heck these entire law suit would be over if there would just be a DRM standard that everyone used. I is what I want. (waht I really want is no DRM but since i know I cannt have that I want it to an industy Standard and it not to be WMA.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    USA (often) and Adelaide, OZ
    #9
    Well, a fact is a tangible item--- you have advanced an opinion and that does not make it a given 'fact' that Apple will have to change its ways. No one is forced into buying an iPod nor do they have to use iTMS. Apple has designed a system of interoperative elements that results in an efficient and easy experience for the user. If you don't like that, don't buy Apple products. You have a choice.

    Note that I would like my BMW to be able to use cheaper GM parts-- it isn't going to happen. Perhaps a class action suit...... right!!!
     
  10. macrumors regular

    zulgand04

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Northborough, MA
    #10
    how is this any different then all of the other music stores only being aviable for windows, or not being able to watch DRM WMF because microsoft doesnt suport it on the mac. ITs the same concept if i want to watch or listen to something in WMF with DRM i have to go out and get a windows computer. Should't that be a lawsuit too, but ohh i forgot the iPod is the hot item now for lawsuits, i really hate the legal system in this country. People sueing so such minor things. In my opion this is nothing new in the world of tecnology, if you want windows you need a wintel, if you want osX you need a mac/mactel. Don't see any lawsuits flying around about macs being the only ones to use osX This is just someone looking for money just like the hearing lose suit, crap.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #11
    That's fine. It will be thrown out. Why? Simple. If you want you can go with a dozen other players and Napster, or Musicmatch as an alternative. There is nothing forcing anyone into using Apple's wares.

    And therein is the core issue. These idiots want Apple’s solution but want someone else’s music store or the reverse. Don’t bitch to Apple bitch to the people who are making the craptasic wares.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #12

    By you argument. No one FORCES you to buy M$ Windows. No FORCES you to use it and yet they have gotten in trouble for it time and time again. On top of that they run under some pretty heavy legal rules. That is because of there rare market share they have that power. Apple is getting quickly that way with the music market.
     
  13. Moderator

    840quadra

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    #13
    oh yay! An other suit against a company that is doing well, by people that are not, and want a piece of the action.

    Reminds me of a local suit were one auto shop sued the other because customers started to go to shop A as opposed to shop B. Nevermind the fact that shop B did dodgy work, and shop A charged less and did it correctly the first time.
     
  14. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #14
    Yes, the fact that they hold patents on the stuff does establish the presumption of market power, and that was recently upheld in the ongoing Independent Ink v. Illinois Tool Works suit. That, in combination with the iPod market share, stands a pretty good chance of it qualifying as monopoly market power.

    The iTMS DRM issue is a very real one. You can't get the equivalent experience using iTMS songs on another portable player, or get the equivalent functionality of iTMS when buying from one of the competing mainstream download services. Ability to play on a computer doesn't matter here, it's not reasonable to expect someone to strap a notebook computer to the arm while jogging; this is about portable players. That the tracks can be exported to CD doesn't cut it, because the options for using those tracks in another portable player will give only degraded functionality (either loss of space efficiency from using uncompressed files, or loss of sound quality from recompression).

    Really, Apple will face an uphill battle trying to shake off these allegations.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Loge

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #15
    If you want to use the tracks on different portable players, then purchase the CDs rather than buy from iTMS, using whatever bit rate and any format your player supports.

    If iTMS was selling content that was unavailable elsewhere I'd have some sympathy with this viewpoint. (I know there are some exclusives, but that's a tiny minority).
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #16
    but cds are a different market. You can not buy on cd only the songs you want. You have to buy the entire album compared to paying $0.99 to get the one song you want. People have shown that is what they want. They where pirating music because the only want the few hit songs by the artist not the entire albume.
    They are not attacking the iPod itself or the iTMS itself. They are going after the fact that they only work with eachother. So if you have a creative Zen and have music from the iTMS you are SOL the stuff does not work.
    They are not asking itunes player to play nice with the other players. They are asking for the other players to be able to play apple DRM. And for apple players to play music from other stores.

    Also rememeber the iTMS has one of the largest if not the largest number of songs. The other major players have no where near the number of iTMS. For you argument to work there would need to be several others that had the same number of choices of music as the iTMS.

    They are attacking it on both sides. From what I gather they are just asking apple to "play nice" with others. For the iPod to play music from other stores and for stuff from iTMS to work with iPod. People choose other stores because they like either there features, cost or something else better. Same for the non ipod players. Right now it very hard for some one to enter either one of the markets because they cannt go up agaist apple.
     
  17. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #17
    Awesome, where can I get the CD of Lou Reed's "Satellite of Love", with only that track?
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Loge

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #18
    Where would you have got it before iTMS? You may not have all the choice you want but you do have more choice than before.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    ScottB

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Location:
    Britain
    #19
    I think the iPod is too popular. I'm (not pleased but), for lack of a better work, welcoming any encouragement for active competition. However, like all crazes they'll eventually fade from popularity, and Apple products, in my experience, have always been of high quality and deserve the amount of sales they've received. I mean, lets face it, the iPod and iTunes has grown the profits of rivals by popularising portable music players.
     
  20. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #20
    The irony?

    Creating an integrated system is the only way Apple could FIGHT a monopoly. Microsoft has long habit of using their monopolies (Windows and Office) to push mediocre products in other areas, when those products couldn't compete on their own. Look at WMP, and WMA stores for instance.

    A huge reason why Apple has been able to fight off Microsoft's goal of a WMA DRM monopoly is that they created an integrated system of store and player and jukebox that work smoothly together. (As opposed to the chaos of supporting unknown products from different companies trying to work together a la "Plays For Sure?"--a good parallel for the Windows PC world vs. what Apple has always done with the Mac and Mac OS.)
     
  21. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #21
    I know that BMG's service (now Napster 2.0) had it.
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    California

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    #22
    Sorry to be picky, but "boughten" is not a word and your usage of it sinks whatever legal discussion you brought (or broughten) to the table.

    My humble opine is that M$ is trying to break Apple's back with lawsuits; just like the lawyer who worked for Microsoft is the same guy suing Apple for iPod hearing impairment...

    What is funny is my iPod Shuffles were for PC and HP as well as Mac. So what the heck is this lawsuit about?
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #23

    Well that last line just showed you clearly did not read the law suit or even read other post. You just say Apple being in a law suite and decided that what ever the case is that apple is right and who ever is sueing them is wrong.

    They are being taken to court over the fact that the iPod will only play the music from the iTMS. And the Music from the iTMS will only play on the iPod.

    What they want, is the iPod to play music from the other music stores and for the music from the iTMS to work on other players. That is what they are asking for.
    Apple loosing would be a good thing for the consumers. It will give us more choices. We will not be lock into iTMS if we get an iPod or lock into an iPod if we using the iTMS.
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    California

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    #24
    :) Spellingspellingspelling :) Law suite? A place in a hotel for lawyers to meet? Loosing?

    Anyway ;) perhaps you are right that I didn't read or didn't care to read about the lawsuit. I just think that it is peculiar that Apple is doing so well and suddenly, people who happened to have worked for M$ in the past are filing lawsuits. Or lawsuites. The real legal crux for my small mind is the iPod video delivery system of films and tv -- and I believe that the powers that be at M$ are trying to prevent their own obsolescence in the video iPod/OSX/MacTel tsunami by taking Apple down now.

    OMG. Capitalism works because Capitalism is a meritocracy.

    What is this Euro idea that there always has to be some challenger to keep the number one guy in check? This is why the Rosenbergs and others gave away US atomic secrets to the Soviet Union back in the day -- to "curb" the power of the U.S.; and they foisted the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people as well as the deaths of at least 100 million under Mao and Stalin.

    Cold War horrors aside, so what if the iPod is the best by far?

    Invent your own Pepsi to beat Coke and then we can talk.

    It just bugs me that there is this sociaistic knee-jerk reaction to anything good or to excellence in general; that it must be somehow "kept in check" by state imposed or rigged competition so that "things can be fair". What kind of grammar school daydream is that?

    There is nothing freer than the inventor who creates something to make our lives better and richer. There is nothing more creepily totalitarian to believe that we must keep that creative freedom somehow "in check" because it is "unfair" that dumber people didn't invent a competitor.

    Capitalism is a meritocracy. There is nothing wrong with doing good work and reaping the benefits of your hard labor.

    If Bill Gates could have made a better iPod, he would already have done so -- instead he and the powers that be are going after the iPod itself to level the marketplace. Instead of outthinking Apple at the creative stage, they are undermining Apple legally. Now THAT'S creepy Capitalism.
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    SC
    #25
    Actually, I don't see it this way, and I really don't believe the case mentioned above has any bearing on Apple's iPod and iTunes. Some tidbits from the case mentioned:

    I have marked some important parts. See, there is no tying (according to the definition used in the above case) between the iPod and iTunes. You can use iTunes and never touch an iPod. Nowhere does Apple say that you MUST use an iPod with iTunes. You can buy songs from the music store and listen to them on your computer. You can burn them to a CD and listen to them in any CD player. If you have a Creative Zen, you can take the CD you made in iTunes and import the songs into your Zen (while inconvenient and lossy, still an option). Apple in no way forces you to buy the iPod. The company above forced its customers to purchase their unpatented ink. No option for using other available ink.

    You can buy an iPod and never once use the iTunes music store. Want music on that iPod, buy a regular CD and import it to your iPod. Buy music from eMusic.com or mp3tunes.com and put it on your iPod. Buy from another music store (see comments procedure and comments above) and put that on your iPod. Apple does not force the consumer to use the iTunes music store.

    So I really don't see how the case above could be considered precedent to go against Apple. Frankly, I think there is far too much choice available for
    Apple to have to worry about this at all.
     

Share This Page