I like choice, but I also think Apple is within their rights to compete against the Microsoft monopoly by creating iTunes and iPod as a system together (which is not entirely closed). iPod sales help Mac sales, and I think Apple is within their rights to CHOOSE when and how (and for what fees) to let other companies make money off their success. Apple clearly doesn't think that time is now.
Remember, MS has an OS and office-suite monopoly and have leveraged that to force their way into other areas, like browsers and instant messaging. Apple gained their music success by no such leverage: they did it by offering a quality product. Several, in fact, integrated--but each usable WITHOUT the others too. I used iTMS without an iPod. And you can use an iPod without the Music Store.
I want companies to compete against Apple and force Apple to improve, but I respect that Apple is not obligated to help out competitors just because I'd like it. So these companies must--and DO--have their own systems of player AND store. If Apple gives Fairplay to player makers, that hurts iPod sales. If Apple gives Fairplay to other stores, that hurts iTMS. (It might give a very tiny boost to iPod sales, but it would also leave iPod owners blaming Apple for frustrations with non-Apple stores. Apple WOULD catch flak for the non-integrated system.)
Plus, every time Apple had to update their DRM details (for technological reasons, or to support new features like video, or due to agreements with record labels, or to fix bugs, or to respond to pirates), Apple would likely have to coordinate with all the OTHER users of Fairplay. Either that, or just tell companies: "You can pay us to use Fairplay, but we may update our own store and iPods in ways that break your store--or player--at any time. We can't be bothered to spend time supporting you. When a change happens, it's your problem to play catch-up." I don't see "license Fairplay" in the simple way that some do. (And would those other stores support Mac? So far, no.)
I DO see opening up Fairplay as a more likely move than supporting WMA. THAT would be directly helping Microsoft in the long run. Opening Fairplay would "only" hurt Apple sales, in exchange for some kind of fees.
But the time may be right one day for all of the above. The day may even come when Apple has a true monopoly, abuses it like Microsoft did, and is forced (unlike Microsoft's slap on the wrist by the Bush administration) to change its ways. But we're not there yet.
And to answer a question asked above: antritrust laws should be followed and enforced for all companies, but it DOES "bother me" less when Apple does something that Microsoft. Of course it does: Apple's success is based on quality products, while Microsoft's is based on being first (to buy and re-sell MS-DOS) and biggest (by being first)--despite a lot of mediocrity. And Apple is the underdog while MS is the company that kills off good competing products all the time. And I USE Apple products, not Microsoft products. So yes, even though Apple does a few awful things (iTunes not being one of them
), like most big companies... I am "bothered" less by Apple's success and closed stance with iPod than I am by Microsoft's success and closed stance with Windows. Even if anyone suggests the two situations are comparable (which they aren't truly).
Now if Apple used their iPod success, say, to start calculatedly killing off mobile phone makers in order to sell a mediocre Apple phone line that couldn't compete on its own merits, THAT would be monopoly abuse MS-style, and I would NOT be OK with that.
In other news, Google informs me that Dead Can Dance have re-formed and been touring
