French 'iTunes' Law Passed

[LethalWolfe]

I said I was kidding. But this does bode well for the performance of the MacPros. If a single Dual Core is running this fast, 2 Dual cores, with a better architecture should be absolutely smoking!

My reply snuck in before your edit.


Lethal

 

[HGW]

Oh lord.

There is nothing illegal or wrong about having a monopoly. The problems arise when a company uses it's monopoly status to unfairly hurt the competition. Which Apple hasn't and MS has. BTW, your "hypothetical" examples of MS abusing its power have already happened, basically, and it's why MS got taken to court in the US and Europe. Last time I checked there is nothing stopping me from using competeing digital players, jukebox software, and on-line music stores on a Mac.

The current state of iPod/iTMS is really no different than business model for video games. Can I play Halo on a PS2? Or how about Zelda on an Xbox? A PC copy of FIFA World CUP 2006 on a GameCube?


Lethal

your argument isnt very strong, all of it.

apples monopoly is hurting competition albiet fairly

if i buy a cd i dont want to find i cant play it in certain stereo's.

there are technical reasons why one game wont work in another console.

 

[EagerDragon]

Time to close shop in France Apple

It is time to pull out and see what the goverment will do. They are sure to get presure from the public.

 

[EagerDragon]

Apple did not create a DRM so they could control the market. The music Industry requested the use of DRM. So Apple decided to take advantage of the situation..... Make the best and coolest player, comply with the DRM requirement so it can get a good deal from the music industry and close the DRM so the iPod and iTunes are one. This sells more iPods and more music while keeping the music industry happy.

Whats wrong with that?

Buy CD's rip them and play them on the iPod or your choice of mp3 players. You have the choice with the exception that you caqn not buy from iTunes and move the music as is. You do have the choice to burn them to a cd and copy the music to any player you like. You still have the choices you are looking for.

 

[space1nvaders]

Governments need to stay out of the music business.

The way free enterprise works is simple. Supply and demand. If people want to buy music from Apple and play it only on an iPod they have that right. If people want to buy music from Apple and play it on something else then you know it cannot be guaranteed to work. iTunes is designed for the iPod.

Let competition offer the option. Who has the right to tell Apple how to run their business. The only thing Apple needs to do is produce a quality product and not mislead people in the process. Governments need to stay out of the music business.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

If I remember right (since I'm on a friend's windows laptop right now and there's actually so much adware that I can't do a Google search for this information) Apple makes profit off of its iPods, not off the iTunes music store.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, HGW, Apple creates a workable DRM solution where there previously was none - and now shouldn't be allowed to profit from it?

Apple is running a business, not a charity, and iTMS is supposed to break even and then sell iPods for profit, not exist without generating profits and serve the public good, while also helping sell iPod competitors. Right now, we see a business model that is mutually beneficial - customers obviously have benefit, or else they wouldn't use iTMS or buy iPods - and Apple benefits by generating profits. With this excessive regulation, you might see Apple pull iTMS out of France completely. Both the consumer and Apple would rather have a non-government regulated iTMS than having no iTMS at all. (If not, iTMS wouldn't be generating sales today)

 

[LethalWolfe]

your argument isnt very strong, all of it.

Well, let me say, your counter argument is absolutely brilliant. All those years as captain of the debate team have really paid off.

apples monopoly is hurting competition albiet fairly

So Apple should be penalized for no other reason than they've made an outstanding product that tons of people want? I guess every company w/a successful product should be forced to license their product away to companies that can't make as good a product. Talk about rewarding failure. I'm sure that will motivate companies to innovate and pump money into R&D.

if i buy a cd i dont want to find i cant play it in certain stereo's.

I would love it too if there was a popular, cross platform digital format that plays back on virtually all devices. Oh, wait, there is. MP3. If you don't like Apple's business model nothing is stopping you from using competing products.

there are technical reasons why one game wont work in another console.

And there are technical reasons why a song from the iTMS won't play back on a non-iPod. What is your point? Nintendo, for example, could license DS tech just as easily as Apple could license FairPlay, but they don't for obvious reasons.


Lethal

 

[HGW]

Well, let me say, your counter argument is absolutely brilliant. All those years as captain of the debate team have really paid off.

was hoping you would re-read your own post and question it further

So Apple should be penalized for no other reason than they've made an outstanding product that tons of people want? I guess every company w/a successful product should be forced to license their product away to companies that can't make as good a product. Talk about rewarding failure. I'm sure that will motivate companies to innovate and pump money into R&D.

they are selling other peoples products and are limiting its use in the process, i care about this

I would love it too if there was a popular, cross platform digital format that plays back on virtually all devices. Oh, wait, there is. MP3. If you don't like Apple's business model nothing is stopping you from using competing products.

not now but down the line when the song i want is not available on cd (it happens) it stands a good chance of only being available on iTunes

And there are technical reasons why a song from the iTMS won't play back on a non-iPod. What is your point? Nintendo, for example, could license DS tech just as easily as Apple could license FairPlay, but they don't for obvious reasons.

the technical restrictions are put there by apple to protect & manipulate the market.


Lethal

its like supermarkets saying you can only buy food if you shop online or goto a corner shop

 

[SPUY767]

its like supermarkets saying you can only buy food if you shop online or goto a corner shop

No, it's not like that at all. It's like Nissan selling a nissan Fuel Pump, and someone bitching cause they can't put it in their '78 Fiesta.

Every industry in the world has its share of proprietary technology. Governments saying that everything needs to be standardized would be the end of competition, and the end of innovation. If what France has chosen, quite poorly, to do spreads to other regions of the world, we are inching closer and closer to fully commoditized markets in every facet of our lives.

 

[HGW]

No, it's not like that at all. It's like Nissan selling a nissan Fuel Pump, and someone bitching cause they can't put it in their '78 Fiesta.

yea exactly what you dont need, how funny would it be if the whole music industry pulled out of france in a backlash

music should be a right and not a business markets woe

 

[Bosunsfate]

I think that all in all Apple will do just fine.

They have the suppior products and no matter how this goes down they will still have a sizeable market share.

What I think is the real risk is for the consumer.

What will the music industry do? The ITMS was a breakthough in getting music out legally. Up till that time, the whole industry was heavily risisting the whole online music business model.

So what does this mean then? Now, how do you control the copying of music?

The real loss is likely to be less content available from any music store....

 

[Arnaud]

I read a lot of non-sense here.

Starting by "Apple has never done anything but fight for the consumer", which is a joke. Apple is a company selling products to make benefits. They found a nice niche when bringing the iPod in, and their choice of features as well as their strategy made it a very succesful product, point. For the rest, I see enough complains in the other threads regarding quality of the products/services (the noise issues, the heat of last products?) to see Apple as a normal company, trying first to save money on the back of their clients. Making intelligent developments is more a strategy to keep ahead from competition than "fighting for the consumer".

About the law and the monopoly point, monopoly is illegal. As stated above, the same happened to Microsoft - and most Apple-users were happy then -. What was it, I think MS had to authorize the use of other media players than WMP when selling a license of Windows, right ? Did anybody on these forums really stand up for MS then, saying you knew what you bought when you bought Windows ?

I understand some points of the issue here, the consumer should be able to choose where he buys from, and with which player he wants to use it. Analogies to car are not so wrong, but you can buy spare parts from another brand to fix your Toyota or whatever. Some companies do protect their market, like BMW which has a special shape/cradle for the stereo so you cannot buy elsewhere another model, but boy, does it suck! Options at BMW are too expensive, and everyone complains about it! I guess technically, they'll argue they cannot change the shape due to external factors like the size of the dashboard...

I do not understand why suddenly every member here is pro-monopoly, just because Apple might be earning less ? Do you all have shares ?

NB: All my thanks to finalcoolman, for calling me (and other iPod users) "a blind sheep with zero self confidence". I chose my iPod because I like it and its features, not to have white earbuds. Additionally, your rant sounds like it's coming directly from another MP3 Player's company marketing blabla, which doesn't make it much better.

 

[finalcoolman]

NB: All my thanks to finalcoolman, for calling me (and other iPod users) "a blind sheep with zero self confidence". I chose my iPod because I like it and its features, not to have white earbuds. Additionally, your rant sounds like it's coming directly from another MP3 Player's company marketing blabla, which doesn't make it much better.

This has nothing to do with me standing up for another company here. In fact that's why I mentioned multiple other companies. However to your point. YOU are in the minority. Most people don't choose an iPod for it's "features". In fact I'll go as far to say as the iPod is a gimmick if it lacks one of the most important features: battery life. Anything less than 40-50 hours is garbage in my opinion and with iPod's hovering around 10 hours I do not know what to say about them. Why? Cause where I come from one of my units has a 300 hour battery life. However I do not want to turn this into an iPod versus the rest of the world argument. So back to my main point, although you may have allegedly chose the iPod for its "features" 97% of the iPod buying public choose the iPod because of the fact that every other kid at school/work has one and because it's a fad and the other 2% choose the iPod because they are blind Apple fanatics. You don't like what I say, fine. But you can't deny it's true.

P.S. Thank you for agreeing with my other points that Apple's emusic monopoly is wrong.

 

[Arnaud]

So back to my main point, although you may have allegedly chose the iPod for its "features" 97% of the iPod buying public choose the iPod because of the fact that every other kid at school/work has one and because it's a fad and the other 2% choose the iPod because they are blind Apple fanatics. You don't like what I say, fine. But you can't deny it's true.

...Do I really need to underline your stats look completely random ?

 

[Pistol Pete]

Farewell french!

 

[gauchogolfer]

Ok then. It's almost like Apple is paying you money to spill out such absurd statements but there is one problem, they are not. All these people who are against this are crazy. I have to ask those people: What do you gain with Apple's propretary DRM? Nothing. Zilch. What would you lose with a universal DRM scheme? Nothing.

Well, if Apple tried to sell music with no DRM, we'd lose the entire store because every artist/group there would pull out in an instant. As for a universal DRM, good luck getting all the companies to agree on a standard. Will MS agree to allow iPods to play WMA-DRM'ed files? Not likely. We'll see where this goes in the future.

You see the problem here is Apple is close to becoming a monopoly (if not already) with legal online music sales. The same kind of monoploy that Microsoft has with Windows. Now what would happen if with Vista Microsoft forced you to install Microsoft Office and you were not allowed to install any other office suite? If they banned all browsers but IE from running on Windows? If they barred all Media Players and you had to use WMP? No iTunes/Quicktime allowed on Windows, just the preinstalled WMP. If you had to use a Microsoft input device and any other brand like Logitech would not work? Outcry is what would happen with people going on TV and calling Microsoft the spawn of Satan and lawsuits popping up like killer bees from your worst nightmare. But with Apple's locking of iTunes and the iPod whoa, wait thats different, right?

Of course it's different, since you can install RealPlayer, Napster, WMP, whatever you like (if provided) on a Mac. There's no restriction on what software you can install. What if Microsoft insisted that you use Windows to play their DRM'ed files....oh, wait, they do.

Cause Apples an angel and you know Apple's always right. Cause the French are evil now because they oppose Apple's music monopoly right? Ya just blame it all on the French when they are the ones standing up for you saying it's your music and you have the right to do what you please with it. How could you possibly insult the French government for actually standing up for consumers rights?

Check my info at left, I LIVE in France. Sheesh.

It's like being forced to buy all your programs from Microsoft because Microsoft made the OS. I have the right to mix and match to my pleasing and no dimwit by the name of Steve Jobs will take that away from me.

You have more choice than you think. iTMS, CDs, independent online music stores (Podsafe Music Network), artists directly. Mix and match as you like.

 

[SPUY767]

In the music arena, Apple has stood as the only barrier to the recording companies gouging music download prices. The other music stores would cave in a minute when faced with the pressure that Apple has faced. Apple has twice stared down the barrel of a gun an come out on top because they have used their market clout to keep the prices down, not the other way around.

Second, Monopolies are not by their very nature illegal. What you do with a monopoly makes it illegal. Has Apple once used its vast majority share of the mp3 market to stamp out competition? No. The reason Apple has a monopoly is, and will remain, that consumers have chosen the iPod as a fine product. And you show me a HD mp3 player with 50 realistic hours of battery life and I'll reach inside my own ass and pull out a golden nugget.

 

[Arnaud]

Food for thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_case
A reminder of the US case against Microsoft. The problem was the bundling of Internet Explorer with the OS (and not WMP, as I thought).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Definitions of a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust
Definitions of the set of laws in force for "the promotion of economic and business competition by prohibiting anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
Definition of the "vendor lock-in" situation, one of the situations controlled by Antitrust laws, where "a customer is so dependent on a vendor for products and services that he or she cannot move to another vendor without substantial switching costs, real and/or perceived".

So, a monopoly is not de facto illegal, but some behaviors attached to it are. The iTunes/iPod situation looks rather close to the "vendor lock-in" situation, which could/should be a source of concern even under the US laws.

Of course, for details, go and see an attorney

 

[billyboy]

When you buy music from iTMS, you know exactly what you're signing up for. The car/gas analogy doesn't make sense here. It's more like, why does Toyota make me buy Toyota-brand parts to keep my warranty valid?

You dont actually know wgat you are letting yourseldf in for without doing some reading! if my brother and his boys are anything to go by they dont advertise very predominantly that to play on other MP3 players you need to burn to cd first

 

[Jamvan]

...So back to my main point, although you may have allegedly chose the iPod for its "features" 97% of the iPod buying public choose the iPod because of the fact that every other kid at school/work has one and because it's a fad and the other 2% choose the iPod because they are blind Apple fanatics. You don't like what I say, fine. But you can't deny it's true.

...Do I really need to underline your stats look completely random ?

81.6% of statistics are made up on the spot!

 

[Azmordean]

First, I feel the need to point something out. My understanding of the French law is NOT that there can be no DRM. So everyone saying, no DRM = no digital downloads, you are barking up the wrong tree. The French law says IF you have DRM, you must be willing to license it to other companies. Not license for free, not give away, but license. So, if iRiver for example wanted to pony up and pay Apple a licensing fee, Apple would give them the right to use FairPlay on iRiver mp3 players. Note I said "use." Not reverse engineer. Simply use it. This would allow users who prefer iRiver mp3 players to download from iTMS.

Now that that is out of the way, a little about monopoly. Monopoly is not, itself, illegal. USING monopoly power to gain power elsewhere as a general matter is. Case in point, Microsoft. Microsoft is considered a virtual monopoly with Windows. That's no problem. That's not why the federal government got after them. The problem arose when Microsoft USED its Windows monopoly power to force its BROWSER down the public's throats. This is called, I believe, "tying" - as in, tying two products together. You leverage your monopoly power to increase your market share (or even form a monopoly) in a DIFFERENT area. Everyone wonders why there is no Microsoft iLife? This is why. Microsoft has a monopoly, so if THEY tried to do something like iLife (not saying it'd be good.. but bear with me ), they'd get sued again. They'd be using their monopoly of windows to kill competition in other areas (photo management software, movie creation software, etc). Apple gets away with it precisely because its market share is tiny. No one is worried about iCal putting other calendaring software out of business. So Microsoft has to just sit and watch while Apple gets accolades for things Microsoft couldn't do legally even if it wanted to. Microsoft is sort of like a big slobbering dog on a chain. Apple is the annoying poodle that's prancing around yapping, *just* out of reach.

So.. now that you understand tying, lets move to the matter at hand. iTMS and iPod. Online music sales *IS* an area where Apple has or is at least getting pretty close to a virtual monopoly. No problem there. But Apple is USING its monopoly power to gain an advantage in a completely separate market - the MP3 player market. THAT is the issue the French are concerned with. It is an issue other governments may become concerned with very soon, because the minute Apple has a virtual monopoly of online music sales, they are clearly guilty of tying with the iPod.

No one really cares that iPod can't play Sony music store files. That just means iPod lacks some features other music players have. If you want Sony music, you can buy a different player that has that feature. The issue is what I noted above - iTMS is a virtual monopoly, and if you use it, iPod is your only option. CLASSIC tying. So, I see what the French are getting at. Their methodology is weird, as it seems normal antitrust law would work just fine - if not immediately, pretty soon as iTMS continues to grow. I don't see the need for a new law here, but I agree with the general concern the French government is displaying over the situation.

As a final aside, let me just say that I LOVE Apple products. I'm not some MS fanboy out to get Apple. I have two macs myself. But I also like consumer choice - and I see that Apple is leveraging its iTMS semi-monopoly to force iPod on people. Thats wrong, and I'll call Apple on it, despite the fact I like the company as a whole. I actually think this is more of Apple's stupid fears that it can't compete. They always fear competition for some reason. They feel they need to protect and coddle the iPod by boosting it up by tying iTMS to it. I think its nonsense. iPod is a great product that can compete with other MP3 players ON ITS OWN. It doesn't need to be bolstered by tying. Come on Apple.. its time to let the baby iPod fight its own fights - its all grown up now! Stop the monopoly leveraging, end the tying, and license fairplay. Heck, you may ever MAKE MONEY from the licensing fees!

 

[zap2]

You dont actually know wgat you are letting yourseldf in for without doing some reading! if my brother and his boys are anything to go by they dont advertise very predominantly that to play on other MP3 players you need to burn to cd first

well if you had read the stuff(which is your legal jobs when signing up) you would have knowen that,

 

[finalcoolman]

Thanks Jahutch for explaining what I've been trying to explain. As you said iTunes is close to becoming a virtual monopoly and Apple's "tying" is ILLEGAL once iTunes achieves a virtual monopoly. With other providers like Napster on the brink of going this is going to be VERY soon. All I can say then is we wont need any new laws so stop trying to blame the French because in sue happy America it will be: bring on the Microsoft style antitrust lawsuits from the 90s. Apple has a great service but they can't use it to force iPod's down peoples throats. This doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple it just means I believe everyone should have a choice.

 

[gauchogolfer]

What is the current fraction of music sales that are done online, compared to CDs? If you are going to say that iTMS represents a monopoly, it's certainly in a small fraction of the total music market. EVERY SINGLE CD you purchase can be played on an iPod. I believe as well that the iPod came before iTMS, not the other way around. So, the driver for the monopoly here would be the hardware, not the software. If this is the case, should the iPod just be able to play all DRM formats, so that you can use it with any online store? Is this an acceptable solution to you?

 

[Arnaud]

81.6% of statistics are made up on the spot!

...I don't even know whether to take that seriously or not !