Go back and read posts properly. The ones using 'low-life tactics' where palm in their implementation of this syncing feature. If they had followed standard procedure like all the other device makers who have itunes library syncing then there would be no problem.
What other device makers???
Apple are not tying products here as itunes is a free piece of software designed specifically to be used with their hardware. This is nothing like your paper example where you have to buy both the printer, ink and paper.
It's EXACTLY like it. A printer needs paper to print and iTunes needs devices in order to sync. A printer is hardware and paper is software. iTunes is software and music players are hardware. 1+1 still equal 2 in the real world.
In the case of macs and os x they are classed as a single product and the os x disks you buy in stores are like upgrades to your product. What will you complain about next? apple not allowing other phone manufacturers to use iphone os on their devices?
No, I'd complain about Apple having a monopoly on software sales for the iPhone with a 30% cut from every developer, Mafia style and NO other options for those software developers to bring their software to market short of hacking the iPhone. But I'm sure you think that's fine too.
If they only harm themselves, isn't that the opposite of anti-competition?
Tying products is not illegal, except in certain circumstances.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/tying_sale.shtm
Note that one of the requirements is monopoly or sufficient market power.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."
What market are they a monopoly in?
I'm afraid that you don't seem to understand Anti-Trust law. You seem confused about this "monopoly" business like most of the people on here that cry that Apple can do anything it wants.
The first part you quoted says, "Cases turn on particular factual settings, but the general rule is that tying products raises antitrust questions when it restricts competition without providing benefits to consumers." Please explain how Apple purposely excluding others from syncing in iTunes "benefits the consumer". It does not and will not. Thus, I can safely throw out your argument here in court. Tying DOES apply here.
Secondly, you quote a bit about defining monopolies in anti-trust law. What you and others don't seem to understand (go back and re-read the post on the Sherman Anti-Trust law to see what I mean) is that "tying" and "monopoly status" are TWO DIFFERENT cases of the same law. NOWHERE does it say a firm must be a monopoly FIRST to violate the tying clause. Those are SEPARATE VIOLATIONS of the law! You can tie products and violate the law and you can be a monopoly and violate the law. You can be BOTH and violate the law, but one does not preclude the other in the law.
See (
http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm ) to see what I mean. The ONLY requirement to violate the tying clause of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is that the company have sufficient economic power (obvious with Apple given its enormous cash reserves) and 'must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.' I don't think anyone on here would argue that Apple doesn't have a "substantial" amount of commerce through EITHER iTunes or iPods and one requires the other (or other Apple product like an AppleTV) to sync. And syncing is where the tying exists in the two products.
This idea that Apple "cannot" violate Anti-Trust law beacause it's not a "monopoly" is JUST PLAIN FALSE and I'm sick of seeing people imply it's a requirement when IT IS NOT. Tying only requires 'substantial commerce.' Thus, by actively DISABLING (and even indicating as such in the iTunes update, which is same as admitting guilt) support for a 3rd party product instead of simply not supporting such products, Apple has clearly crossed over from simply having vertical integration into the land of actively trying to prevent competition, which is what Anti-Trust is designed to prevent. Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. If you don't like the tying clause, get the law changed. Now if Apple had claimed they broke support for the Palm Pre by "accident" and they have no requirement to support their products, they might just flounder through a trial. But by pretty much saying straight out in the update that they purposely defeated the device, they've opened themselves up to a potential law suit. I hope Palm takes advantage of it because I'm sick of Apple trying to SQUASH all competition rather than simply COMPETE for my money. In that regard, they are no better than Microsoft, behaviorally.
Now the so-called 'fanboys' on here can state I don't know the law all day long and I keep saying Apple is a monopoly (I have not; I've said pseudo-monopoly in some cases for market niches or segments like hardware for OS X, but that is more on traditional definitions, not legal ones, but seeing as monopoly status has no legal bearing on tying, it's irrelevant), but I have yet to see a single post refute the links I've provided, which legal professional have written. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know how to read. Tying does NOT require a company to be a monopoly. PERIOD.
I have NO vested interest in these matters except as a consumer. I'm tired of Apple doing everything but compete in the markets they operate in. Pretty cases aside, I want OS X to be a better product and Macs to have good value for the dollar compared to their PC counterparts. Trying to avoid competition so they can soak their consumers is bad PR. Unfortunately, it's also classic Apple. Some of us had hoped the move to Intel would have helped equalized the hardware side of the market and lead to more competitive hardware products. Believe it or not, some of us are using OS X because we LIKE the operating system better. But that doesn't mean we have to like underpowered, overpriced hardware which has NOTHING to do with the OS except for Apple's legal clause in the license agreement...a clause some of us view as illegal due to tying. Why should one preclude the other? Why should Apple not have to compete in hardware because people don't like Windows? If they OPERATE in BOTH markets, they should COMPETE in BOTH markets. Tying one to the other to prevent competition in one of the two markets is not kosher. But to the fanboy who only cares about Apple's viewpoint, it doesn't matter if it's logical or even legal. They blindly stand by Apple in all things and I find that nauseating. Support should depend on action, not fanaticism.
