Apple sued over 'music monopoly'

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 68020

    winmacguy

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #2
    LMFAO!
    Apple competes on an open level playing field and kicks the competition's collective asses and nobody likes it so they all throw their toys out of the cot.
    :apple:
     
  3. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    lol that was good for a laugh

    people just like to make money off other's good fortunes
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #4
    Where do these jokers who desperately want to play .wma files on their iPods come from?

    *runs off to browse Amazon MP3*
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    #5
    ridiculous

    if you need to play .wma's, get a different player, or get a converter. no one is making you use an ipod.
     
  6. Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #6
    As mentioned over on Slashdot, somebody should also sue Microsoft for using Samba instead of AFP.
     
  7. macrumors G3

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #7
    Did anyone tell them that you can buy DRM free AAC's on iTMS now? And they can actually play ... wait for it ... on other digital music players! GET! OUT!
     
  8. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #8
    Not to mention the Zune, which can play iTunes Plus content, but not PlaysForSure WMAs.

    B
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #9
    This confused me a bit, just checking

    the lawsuit revolves around apple deciding what legal downloadable music can be played on products they sell? and calling this monopolistic?

    does that mean i can be sued for allowing the people i choose to enter my house?
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #10
    Not a great analogy, unless you're running some sort of business out of your house, in which case it would depend on the nature of your business... :D

    ...and even then, I doubt whatever business you're running out of your house has a crushing market share.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    jackc

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    #11
    Maybe Apple users will quit crying about big bad Microsoft and just talk about which products are better.
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    #12
    Again? Don't they just get it?

    I can't play Super Mario on Playstation. The Nintendo DS games are not compatible with PSP. XBox games don't play on the Wii, nor playstation.

    And what about Sony and Betamax, should they sue the VHS camp? Or HD DVD vs. BluRay?
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    mainstreetmark

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #13
    And might I point out that iTunes for Windows has WMA->AAC conversion built right in.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #14
    Somebody should sue Apple for not allowing us to run Windows on our Macs.

    Oh wait...

    Nevermind.

    I demand the right to play BetaMax tapes on my iPod!
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    #15
    Microsoft have already been forced to document and license their protocols.

    If Microsoft prevented a Windows desktop OS from receiving files from anything but a Windows server OS then there would be outrage, a court case and Microsoft would be guilty of using their desktop monopoly to achieve dominate file server market (after all, nobody would buy a file server that wasn't compatible with their desktops). This is (of course, arguably) what Apple does with the iPod - leveraged their portable player monopoly market to dominate the download market.

    This is different. If Sony/Nintendo/MS achieved a monopoly in the console market and then used this to prevent anyone else but themselves from selling games, then there could be a case.
     
  16. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #16
    That is the main point. The difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal one is how the monopoly decides to twist the market.

    There is nothing inherently illegal to having a huge percentage of any market by popularity like Apple has as long as there is competition. Since Apple has competition in both the hardware and music side, their monopoly is because of popularity. Nothing illegal about that.

    Furthermore, they do not force the consumer to buy anything. You are not forced to buy music, nor are you forced to buy an iPod. Apple sells Non DRM music and you are still permitted to burn music to a CD and re-import. All of these limitations is clearly outlined in their terms of usage. Heck, they don;t even have a controlling interest in AAC unlike WMA which is owned by MS.

    Furthermore, the DRM mechanism is not by Apple's choice but rather due to the terms of their partnerships.

    The only way Apple has an illegal monopoly is if they try to control the market and erect barriers to entry. The only thing that Apple has has is popularity given to them by the consumers. You cannot fault Apple for that.
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #17
    Why must people make a mockery of the legal system. Maybe I should sue Apple because I can not run Wimamp on my Mac under OS X.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    jholzner

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Champaign, IL
    #18
    Ha! The other day I bought 5 songs on Amazon's mp3 store because Apple didn't have them. Some monopoly.
     
  19. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    The full article, worth reading:

    http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205207895

    I'm not impressed with the merits of this lawsuit, but I don't consider it to be a "mockery" of the legal system, either. Whenever a company has a market share as large as Apple's, then they have to be very careful about the way they use it against competitors.

    The key here seems to be whether Microsoft ever tried to obtain WMA playability on the iPod.
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    #20
    Actually the way things are going in this country with less property rights and individual freedom that may be the case in the not so distant future :)
     
  21. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #21
    Well...

    I think most Apple users can give a crap about big bad Microsoft. Apple's products ARE better. ;)
     
  22. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    Should MS be the ones sued here? I mean, sure, you can use the ITMS to buy stuff and put it on your iPod, but you can also use MP3s and a bunch of other formats. Apple isn't stopping anyone from using unprotected files bought elsewhere from being used on the iPod. You don't even need to use iTunes, there are 3rd party softwares out there that work with the iPod. You can also use it, and protected AAC files, with Macs or PCs, even Linux with the right software. Protected WMA files can only be played on Windows via MSs software, and can only be played or converted with their approved software and the hardware they approved. Doesn't even work on Macs, though non-protected WMA does with 3rd patty freeware.

    I guess Apple could license PFS from MS, but I don't see why they would want to, other than to maybe try and get those who currently have a lot of WMA files, which apparently, there aren't a lot of.
     
  23. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    Right. I'd be a lot more concerned by this suit if Microsoft was a plaintiff. I think Real would have a better case against Apple, since they did make an effort to get their music format on the iPod.
     

Share This Page