USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute

[Stratus Fear]

iTunes and the iTunes store are fantastically successful. Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to sync with iTunes (an ability which was developed without cost to Apple) to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent. If Microsoft tweaked Windows so that Boot Camp didn't work, the Apple community would be livid...but Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so why do they care? I'm no fan of Microsoft, believe me, but I'm not going to be a blind fan of Apple in all that they do, either. They're a company, and they sometimes do Bad Things in the name of profit. That being a company at all makes this their nature is of no consequence, we should be advocates for users wherever we find them.

3rd parties can sync with iTunes libraries. The law doesn't care about what is convenient and what isn't. For the matter of dangerous cross-market precedents...

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Mac OS X to protect the Mac is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install iPhone OS to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Sony Bravia firmware to protect the Bravia LCD HDTVs is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install WebOS to protect the Palm Pre is a dangerous cross-market precedent. (you can't install it on anything else, now can you?)

You also still have yet to prove that what Apple is doing is 1) not in the spirit of competition (forcing the competition to come up with their own, possibly unique ideas) 2) illegal and 3) that convenience factors are a matter of law.

iTunes doesn't cripple access to iTunes Store content for other players. And by this I mean impede -- copy files or using an XML sync program is easy enough. End of story.

 

[docholid]

I got news for you. If Apple were to run the iTunes store but not sell iPods or iPhones, iTunes would have no syncing facility. Everyone would have to go through the "inferior method of using a vendor supplied app that reads in a XML file" :

Wow, look at all that inferiority. Seriously, he can sync playlists and songs, eject the device, set device options and all is about a single click away.

I'm dubious that you're correct about iTunes not offering native syncing if Apple didn't sell hardware. They would have an incentive to offer an open protocol that phone or portable media player vendors could use to sync with their hugely popular software.

It's primarily inferior because it's more complicated to set up. Never mind that most anybody in this forum likely has no problem with it, scores of people do have problems with the simplest of software configurations. Though I don't suppose that sync program actually manages the music library, though, hmm?

That's not what the poster you're replying to said. He said if Palm is not happy with Apple's provided facilities, they are free to partner with another digital music store and use their facilities. They are also free to write Palm MediaSync like Blackberry did if they really want to use the iTunes stuff.

Never mind that the users of other music distribution channels likely also use iTunes? The important point is that iTunes is a separate product with huge market share. Saying what is essentially "ignore it" is to defy the reality of the market.

And who cares what the market share of your digital music store is ? Market share doesn't make it better or worse. If the artists you want are on there, either is fine.

Which brings us to your anti-trust claims. Market share has nothing to do with it. Monopolies are about 1 thing : market control. As it stands, Apple might have a big market share in media playing hardware and digital music distribution, but they don't control the market at all. You're not forced into buying an iPod to use content that is iPod exclusive, bought exclusively on the iTunes store. With DRM-free music being the norm now, any player that supports AAC can play back iTunes bought music. The iPod can playback MP3s, which are sold by other DRM free music vendors, so Apple isn't locking out other digital music stores from their hardware.

You're saying that 70% market share in online digital music distribution doesn't confer any amount of market control? iTunes being the only way to buy music from the iTunes Store makes iTunes essentially the default music management software. The fact that only Apple hardware can sync with it natively gives a large advantage to Apple products in the minds of the largely computer-illiterate population.

So it's disingenious to start foaming at the mouth asking for anti-trust litigation against Apple in this arena because they could prove competition is healthy in a heartbeat. They could just drag the DoJ and the judge assigned to the case to Bestbuy, pick up a Sony device, drag them all the way to the computer aisle, log into Amazon MP3, and buy some music for it on a HP Laptop.

I rarely foam, thank you. I didn't ask for anti-trust litigation, either, I simply said that Apple's actions to bolster the iPhone could run afoul of anti-trust regulations, and explained why. It's rare that anti-trust litigation is a real winner, in any event. The underlying issue, as I see it, is whether the people here actually believe in the idea that leveraging dominant strength in one market to compete in another is a Bad Thing. I used to think that the answer would be "yes," but it seems to be "only if it's not Apple." In any event, your 'anti-trust counter-example' is rather silly. I could have purchased a Mac and downloaded Netscape at any time, but it doesn't prove that Microsoft didn't (doesn't) have any degree of market control.

 

[Stratus Fear]

It's primarily inferior because it's more complicated to set up. Never mind that most anybody in this forum likely has no problem with it, scores of people do have problems with the simplest of software configurations. Though I don't suppose that sync program actually manages the music library, though, hmm?

Where does this require, by law, that Apple provide direct access to the iTunes software for method of syncing?

You're saying that 70% market share in online digital music distribution doesn't confer any amount of market control? iTunes being the only way to buy music from the iTunes Store makes iTunes essentially the default music management software. The fact that only Apple hardware can sync with it natively gives a large advantage to Apple products in the minds of the largely computer-illiterate population.

Plenty of people use iTunes only to sync iPods and use something else for music management. Why is this impossible with other players in the other direction? Where is Apple's advantage of having created a uniquely innovative system and having it exclusively to themselves at the top level illegal? Oh, but Apple has 70% of the market. Surely competitors exist in that other 30%? Or is that other 30% just a black hole and Apple is pulling the wool over our eyes? Why isn't Microsoft in it deep for not providing things like Project, Visio, Outlook, and Access to non-Windows users of Office? They have about 90% of the OS market. Surely they're doing something illegal there?

Look, if you're going to assert something and expect others to not disagree, you better be able to back up what you've got with something other than mere suggestion and opinion. I don't care if you think Apple is doing something wrong. I care if they're actually doing something wrong. So far the evidence seems to be in the negative, not the affirmative.

 

[docholid]

3rd parties can sync with iTunes libraries. The law doesn't care about what is convenient and what isn't. For the matter of dangerous cross-market precedents...

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Mac OS X to protect the Mac is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install iPhone OS to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install Sony Bravia firmware to protect the Bravia LCD HDTVs is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to install WebOS to protect the Palm Pre is a dangerous cross-market precedent. (you can't install it on anything else, now can you?)

You also still have yet to prove that what Apple is doing is 1) not in the spirit of competition (forcing the competition to come up with their own, possibly unique ideas) 2) illegal and 3) that convenience factors are a matter of law.

iTunes doesn't cripple access to iTunes Store content for other players. And by this I mean impede -- copy files or using an XML sync program is easy enough. End of story.

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

 

[pdjudd]

That's just being deliberately obtuse. I mean 70% of online digital music distribution, and that's obvious. They sell more music than Best Buy.

Doesn't matter. All it shows is that iTunes is really popular. There is still health competition. Somebody is always going to be popular. That doesn't prove much until they start using that position to prevent cometing music stores from existing. That is clearly not going on.

The fact that the vast majority of online digital music comes from the iTunes store has the effect of making the iTunes software the de facto standard music management software. If the iTunes Store's market share is 70%, it's quite possible that the market share for iTunes, itself, is actually higher yet.

Doesn't matter. It is perfectly legal to have a high market share.

Leaving aside the "poor Apple" talk (they still thought it was okay to sell music with DRM), I thought the power of default settings was settled back in the browser fiasco. The iTunes Store sells 70% of online music, so iTunes is the default music management software, because you can't buy music on iTunes without it.

Not quite. The Netscape problem was due to Microsoft abusing their market position to prevent competitors from doing business with Netscape. That's anti-competition since MS was trying to use their desktop market share to push the unrelated (at the time) web browser market. That's why MS has to sell Windows without IE. Default settings was argued as only one barrier to entry that MS imposed (exploiting user ignorance of software alternative). There is no law that stops a company from bundling software or locking software down. Microsoft's actions were based on its massive controlling market share and the absence of competition. The market that Apple is facing is far different (large number of music players, phones, and music retailers) which overall makes market share a les meaningful number.

Not to mention that high market share on its own is not illegal - there has to be deliberate action to control one unrelated market by use of another already dominant one.

iTunes and the iTunes store are fantastically successful. Proactively crippling the ability of a 3rd party to sync with iTunes (an ability which was developed without cost to Apple) to protect the iPhone is a dangerous cross-market precedent.

Yes, iTunes is really popular. But there is nothing wrong with limiting the scope of your own software - happens all the time.

If Microsoft tweaked Windows so that Boot Camp didn't work, the Apple community would be livid...but Microsoft doesn't sell computers, so why do they care?

It would be very legal for MS to do that, however I don't see how they can do it. Of course we should point out that Microsoft has a business model to sell their software wherever they can. Apple's business model is very different and most importantly, very legal.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, believe me, but I'm not going to be a blind fan of Apple in all that they do, either. They're a company, and they sometimes do Bad Things in the name of profit. That being a company at all makes this their nature is of no consequence, we should be advocates for users wherever we find them.

It would be nice if things would work out the way we would like, but the world does not work that way. Apple as of right now, is not guilty of any crime whatsoever. Being restrictive and serving your own ends is not illegal unless a court finds otherwise. Apple doesn't want iTunes to be an open solution. People don't seem to care all that much. Until you can change people's minds on the issue, not much is going to change.

 

[Stratus Fear]

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

I think you're missing the point. Where's the market control? None of the others have a lot of market control, and when 30% of the market exists in competitors, 30% being a fair chunk, I don't think Apple does with iTunes either. Amazon, Napster, Rhapsody, as for music stores, these have been around for some time. Creative's Zen line, SanDisk Sansa, Microsoft's Zune, iRiver, Cowan, etc. etc. etc. have all been around for some time, as well. They aren't hurting from this at all, but Netscape clearly died a long time ago as a result of the Internet Explorer pack-in and exclusivity. Even government intervention didn't stop that. But really what is key here is the question: is a competitor is actively being hurt, even while making their own effort to compete fairly in said market? The answer for Palm is no. They've made no effort and clearly they would rather whine than do so, and the Pre is selling about as well as any random smartphone usually does.

And again, I'll ask a question: where does native iTunes syncing being locked to Apple products preclude Palm from doing the same with their own products (phone and music management software)? Or for that matter, going the route RIM did? The answer is that it doesn't preclude this at all.

 

[docholid]

Where does this require, by law, that Apple provide direct access to the iTunes software for method of syncing?

As an anti-trust matter it may require Apple to not make their market-dominant online digital music distribution system considerably easier to use with only their hardware, or to not proactively disable independently-derived syncing capability in a competitor's hardware.

Plenty of people use iTunes only to sync iPods and use something else for music management. Why is this impossible with other players in the other direction? Where is Apple's advantage of having created a uniquely innovative system and having it exclusively to themselves at the top level illegal? Oh, but Apple has 70% of the market. Surely competitors exist in that other 30%? Or is that other 30% just a black hole and Apple is pulling the wool over our eyes? Why isn't Microsoft in it deep for not providing things like Project, Visio, Outlook, and Access to non-Windows users of Office? They have about 90% of the OS market. Surely they're doing something illegal there?

Sure, plenty of people do, but 'plenty' is pretty subjective. I'd wager that not 10% of iTunes Store users do this. It's not as though 70% of online digital music consumers are iTunes Store only, but that 70% of the online music overall comes from iTunes. Even if the average iTunes Store consumer only downloads 70% of their music from Apple, they all have to have iTunes (even if you only download say 5% of your music from Apple), and that creates a default preference for iTunes as a music library manager.

I don't think I would mind if Microsoft was forced to divest the Office operation. Surely it would make for a more competitive marketplace. Their action may not run afoul of regulations simply because they're dominant in *both* office software and operating systems.

Look, if you're going to assert something and expect others to not disagree, you better be able to back up what you've got with something other than mere suggestion and opinion. I don't care if you think Apple is doing something wrong. I care if they're actually doing something wrong. So far the evidence seems to be in the negative, not the affirmative.

I thought that's what we were all doing, asserting our opinions? I'm certainly not an attorney well-versed in anti-trust law, and I suspect that neither are you. All we've really got are our opinions and fragments of things we've picked up on the Internet. I don't happen to be of the mind that 'wrong' and 'illegal' are congruent. It's well possible to be doing something wrong and not technically be illegal. All I've said is that I think it's *possibly* illegal (though unlikely to provoke legal action). I still think that it's wrong, and I don't think that we ought to applaud actions that adversely affect users just because it's Apple vs. some other company that we don't like as well. I'm well aware that this is very likely to be a minority opinion here.

 

[pdjudd]

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.

Anti-competition is an exception, but it is very difficult to prove these things. Of course when anti-competition goes on, that implies that little to no convenience exists. In the Netscape matter, convince was not the problem, it was Microsoft dictating terms to the market that barred entry for a major competitor.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

True, however the key to market interference is how related the markets are. One can argue that syncing software market and hardware are very related.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

It may or may not be in the spirit of competition in some way, but closed systems are not illegal nor are they wrong on their own. iTunes is Apple's IP. They have the rights to control that in whatever legal way they want to. Simply controlling your IP though doesn't restrict competition. The public doesn't have a right to another persons IP without their explicit consent. Thats the basis of licensing. Bottom line is, Apple doesn't license iTunes like that and there is no law that says that Apple has to. Competition comes on a companies own virtues on a level playing field. Take iTunes out of the picture and look on a base hardware level. Both players have an equal entry point (both are USB devices). Apple doesn't prevent Palm's device from accessing the base hardware. In fact, I argue that hardware wise, they are treated quite identically until later software picks things up. Point is, Palm can connect, thus they can compete. Apple doesn't block Palms hardware device. Apple has a great property with iTunes - but like with the Zune software, it is not open.

Purely on a hardware basis, each device has an equally level ground. Software, maybe not so, but when you fight a duel, you have to bring two weapons. Palm is crying foul because Apple has a better gun and they don't have any. It looks as though you are calling Apple sort of a gun shop in this instance. They are not.

Bottom line - competition exists on the merits of your own products, not assuming that your competition is going to handicap themselves. Apple isn't stopping Palm from existing. It just doesn't want Palm to take away its dueling pistol that everyone knows they have. Palm is not trying to compete, they are complaining about Apple being unfair when it turns out that Palm is taking without permission. When you want to play with someones toys you ask. If the owner says no, you try and do better than them - not get the other kids toy taken from them. Palm needs to get its own toy and become popular. Thats competition.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The law clearly does care what is convenient. Downloading Netscape was always easy, even if Microsoft forbid vendors from pre-loading it.

None of the products you mention involve leveraging dominant market share in one market to compete in another. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying.

What Apple's doing isn't in the spirit of competition because they're not just letting the iPhone compete. If the Pre can sync with iTunes directly, who cares? The iPhone should still win, right, if it's the better phone?

Well the problem you are running in right now these apple fans are to blind to see it. Asking them to see the logic is like asking a Blind man to pick out a single Green apple out of a 100 Reds apples. Yes it is possible but it is very rare that it will happen.

 

[pdjudd]

As an anti-trust matter it may require Apple to not make their market-dominant online digital music distribution system considerably easier to use with only their hardware, or to not proactively disable independently-derived syncing capability in a competitor's hardware.

As I have said before, Anti-competition is a huge matter and is very difficult to prove which is why they rarely happen. It took MS having a 95%+ of the market for operating systems in a market where there was limited options (in both the OS and web browser market) before the government stepped in. Microsoft got off real light too and they didn't have to change anything of their most previous actions (like their heavily integrating of internet explorer into the OS to the extent that it could not be removed at all or splitting the company up, etc). With Apple, the case is very different, end users have lots of choices of media players, phones, and music vendors. Apple might be real popular, but unless you can show that Apple did not get that off their own merits in an environment of healthy competition, arguing anti-trust is a moot point. We might as well argue what would happen if the US suddenly became a monarchy.

Sure, plenty of people do, but 'plenty' is pretty subjective.

Ok...

I'd wager that not 10% of iTunes Store users do this.

Do you have a cite? Otherwise, you are just speculating.

It's not as though 70% of online digital music consumers are iTunes Store only, but that 70% of the online music overall comes from iTunes.

I would suppose that most people keep their CD collection in iTunes - thats what everybody argued back when Napster tried to pimp the value of their subscription based service by implied that everybody who had an iPod just used the iTunes store to fill it up with music. Critics argued that ignored the CD libraries that people had.

But it doesn't matter how much Apple sells unless we are arguing popularity. Nobody doubts popularity, but that is because people chose that system despite massive choices.

Even if the average iTunes Store consumer only downloads 70% of their music from Apple, they all have to have iTunes (even if you only download say 5% of your music from Apple), and that creates a default preference for iTunes as a music library manager.

That's a software limitation that Apple chose to do. Early on, it restricted people to the Mac since back in the day, the iPod only worked on Windows via clunky third party solutions (hey novel idea!). Thats why Apple decided to make iTunes cross platform - so they could compete with other vendors in selling music. Nowadays, people go out of their way on Windows to download iTunes (since its not pre-installed by anyone), install and use it despite the fact that their are even pre-loaded options (windows media player). The only systems that iTunes comes preloaded with are the Macs, however they are a small minority of the overall makeup of iTunes and iPod/iPhone users. That market exploded when the software and hardware reached Windows. It was a smart marketing move.

Second, having the user choose (I might add of their own volition) to have iTunes associate files is nothing new.

I don't think I would mind if Microsoft was forced to divest the Office operation. Surely it would make for a more competitive marketplace. Their action may not run afoul of regulations simply because they're dominant in *both* office software and operating systems.

I wouldn't mind either. Such an action was proposed back in the US v Microsoft, but that never happened. The anti-trust case ended up pretty dismal when you think of the settlement that Microsoft agreed to. There is a reason that these cases rarely happen - they are difficult to prove and carry out.

 

[ftaok]

Fairplay terms

Not sure if this has been mentioned or even if it's relevant ... but I'll put it out there for thought.

Can anyone confirm if older iTS music (with DRM) will load onto a Pre masquerading as an iPod?

Perhaps this is what Apple is trying to prevent from happening. The original terms of iTS purchases was that you could load to any number of iPods. If Pre's are pretending to be iPods and loading DRM'd songs onto the Pre is a violation of the terms Apple agreed to with the music labels, then wouldn't Apple be in violation?

Could it be that Apple has to make an effort to prevent these songs from loading onto non-iPods?

 

[pdjudd]

Well the problem you are running in right now these apple fans are to blind to see it. Asking them to see the logic is like asking a Blind man to pick out a single Green apple out of a 100 Reds apples. Yes it is possible but it is very rare that it will happen.

Nice Ad hominum attack there. Way to dismiss your critics.

 

[pdjudd]

Can anyone confirm if older iTS music (with DRM) will load onto a Pre masquerading as an iPod?

Won't work - Apple hasn't licenses fairplay to other vendors.

Perhaps this is what Apple is trying to prevent from happening. The original terms of iTS purchases was that you could load to any number of iPods. If Pre's are pretending to be iPods and loading DRM'd songs onto the Pre is a violation of the terms Apple agreed to with the music labels, then wouldn't Apple be in violation?

Its possible, after all when you think about it, there are many things in iTunes that the pre and nobody else can ever use like the ringtones, the App store, or even the tons of video (TV, movie, Rental) content that Apple sells. Its certainly going to be tough to explain and placate users who are angry that Apple sold them a 15 dollar movie that didn't work with device X. Most people are not going to understand that Apple just can't give the content away like that due to third party agreements.

Could it be that Apple has to make an effort to prevent these songs from loading onto non-iPods?

Not much effort involved, Fairplay won't decrypt devices not armed with the decryption keys. Palm doesn't have that and can't get it without Apple giving them.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Nice Ad hominum attack there. Way to dismiss your critics.

Say what you want but it holds fairly true about Apple Fanboys. They are blind follows of apple. They treat anything out of SJ mouth as the word of god.

 

[ftaok]

Won't work - Apple hasn't licenses fairplay to other vendors.

I guess what I mean is ... will the file actually load onto the Pre. I realize that without Fairplay, it won't play. I'm wondering if just being able to load onto a non-iPod is a violation of Apple's agreement with the labels.

Its possible, after all when you think about it, there are many things in iTunes that the pre and nobody else can ever use like the ringtones, the App store, or even the tons of video (TV, movie, Rental) content that Apple sells. Its certainly going to be tough to explain and placate users who are angry that Apple sold them a 15 dollar movie that didn't work with device X. Most people are not going to understand that Apple just can't give the content away like that due to third party agreements.

This is an interesting point. I can certainly understand Apple's reluctance to allow a 3rd party device from directly connecting to iTunes for this reason alone. It's not worth the headache dealing with the support of Pre (and other) users complaining that a TV show they bought won't work.

 

[KnightWRX]

The iTunes Store sells 70% of online music, so iTunes is the default music management software

Wrong. Online music distribution and music management software have nothing to do with each other.

Someone might just buy physical media and still need to manage it after it is ripped to a digital file format like mp3, wma or aac. The biggest Music retailer today is Wal-Mart. They sell both physical media and online mp3s.

As such, iTunes is not the default music management software, you'd have to do a survey to find out iTunes market share since it is not tied at all to online distribution of music. You can't even begin to associate both and draw conclusions from one for the other.

Your reasoning is flawed, so your conclusions are also flawed.

I'm dubious that you're correct about iTunes not offering native syncing if Apple didn't sell hardware. They would have an incentive to offer an open protocol that phone or portable media player vendors could use to sync with their hugely popular software.

Maybe the fact that iTunes didn't have syncing facilities until 2.0, which came out after the initial launch of the iPod might make you less dubious.

iTunes syncing is there because of the iPod. At first they did license it to other device vendors and iTunes 2.0 could sync to the iPod and a choice few other devices. The ability was removed after 4.0 because other vendors didn't keep Apple up to date and it was getting difficult to support.

Maybe read up a bit on Apple history before you start assuming you actually understand the facts behind it ?

 

[pdjudd]

I guess what I mean is ... will the file actually load onto the Pre. I realize that without Fairplay, it won't play. I'm wondering if just being able to load onto a non-iPod is a violation of Apple's agreement with the labels.

Ahh! I don't think they will. The way that I understand fairplay is that if the device is not authorized (or is even capable of authorization), file transfer will not occur. That prevents me from getting a bunch of my friends music on my iPhone - my phone isn't an authorized device. My guess is that any authorization one would attempt on the pre would fail because the device is physically incapable of being authorized in the first place. Just a guess though

 

[pdjudd]

Wrong. Online music distribution and music management software have nothing to do with each other.

I would argue that they are related, but not explicitly though. If i purchase tracks from Amazon, I don't need any music management software, just playback software (an obvious technological requirement). DRM is a whole 'nother issue all together.

You are right, but Music management software is a logical, related extension of music distribution as a whole. its kind of silly to argue otherwise. Its not illegal to require a compatible sound card to play digital music any more than it is to require a CD player to play CD's.

 

[czachorski]

Say what you want but it holds fairly true about Apple Fanboys. They are blind follows of apple. They treat anything out of SJ mouth as the word of god.

I think that was true in the 90's (welcome to the last millennium, lol), when Apple products were going downhill and their user base was slipping. In the last 10 year or so, the rest of the populace has come around to see what most Apple fanbois knew all along - Apple makes great products and is more plugged into the end-user perspective than most anyone else around. Hard to debate when you look at the market share for iPods, iTunes, and the fast rising tide for Macs and iPhones.

It's also interesting to note that the debates and discussion as of late center around issues that are very bleeding-edge in terms of legal and technological precedent: Palm syncing to iTunes, Apple iPhone app store rejection policies and the google voice app, Psystar making clones, etc. As much as some people want to throw around the "Apple is being evil" and the "fanbois always eat out of Jobs' hand" monikers, the issues at hand are much more complex these days, and a few may even pave new ground for IP protection, licensing, FCC policy and tech laws.

 

[KnightWRX]

I would argue that they are related, but not explicitly though. If i purchase tracks from Amazon, I don't need any music management software, just playback software (an obvious technological requirement). DRM is a whole 'nother issue all together.

You are right, but Music management software is a logical, related extension of music distribution as a whole. its kind of silly to argue otherwise. Its not illegal to require a compatible sound card to play digital music any more than it is to require a CD player to play CD's.

The fact is, you can have music to manage without ever buying a single track online (ripping only physical CDs) and you can buy music online and only leave the tracks littered in a folder, just using playback software to listen to it.

Both are unrelated. Music management has nothing to do with how it is distributed, it is distribution agnostic. Music distribution has nothing to do with how it is managed. It is management agnostic.

However, with easyness of access to music comes an increase in quantiy of music acquired which results in a need to manage said music. However, saying the iTMS has 70% market share so iTunes has 70% market share is disingenious at best.

 

[dejo]

The biggest Music retailer today is Wal-Mart

Actually, since April of 2008, according to NPD, iTunes has been the #1 music retailer in the US (including CD sales), surpassing even Walmart. As of their latest report, iTunes sells 25% of music sold.

 

[pdjudd]

The fact is, you can have music to manage without ever buying a single track online (ripping only physical CDs) and you can buy music online and only leave the tracks littered in a folder, just using playback software to listen to it.

*Grin* back in my Windows days when I was using WinAmp for playback (I don't remember if I had an iPod back them but it was defiantly before I had access to iTunes) I did exactly that. It was a pain for organization purposes, but it worked well enough

Both are unrelated. Music management has nothing to do with how it is distributed, it is distribution agnostic. Music distribution has nothing to do with how it is managed. It is management agnostic.

They are separate markets for sure, but you cannot deny that nowadays they are tenuously related since most music management is done through dedicated software. But that is neither here nor there. Music management software is not required for distribution. It can make said distribution more convenient, but nobody complained when Microsoft was doing it with Windows Media Player and Plays For Sure. Too bad that MS botched it up despite market share.

However, with easyness of access to music comes an increase in quantiy of music acquired which results in a need to manage said music. However, saying the iTMS has 70% market share so iTunes has 70% market share is disingenious at best.

Exactly. All tossing 70% around proves is that iTunes is really popular which nobody doubts. Music distribution is huge overall and Apple is just one player.

 

[pdjudd]

Actually, since April of 2008, according to NPD, iTunes has been the #1 music retailer in the US (including CD sales), surpassing even Walmart. As of their latest report, iTunes sells 25% of music sold.

I think this quote for your link is telling:

According to The NPD Group, a leading market research company, while CDs remain the most popular format for paid music purchases, digital music sales are making up an ever-greater share of U.S. music sales. CDs comprised 65 percent of all music sold in the first half of 2009 compared to paid digital downloads, which comprised 35 percent of music sales.

This is competition at work, over half the market of music sales alone are products that Apple competes with (CD's). I see the air out of another anti-trust argument balloon.

 

[Stratus Fear]

Well the problem you are running in right now these apple fans are to blind to see it. Asking them to see the logic is like asking a Blind man to pick out a single Green apple out of a 100 Reds apples. Yes it is possible but it is very rare that it will happen.

Except for the fact that there is little logic and a lot of emotion. Calling "Apple fanboy" is like calling "Nazi." It doesn't belong in this discussion. It's an ad hom.

 

[dejo]

This is competition at work, over half the market of music sales alone are products that Apple competes with (CD's). I see the air out of another anti-trust argument balloon.

Yeah, I agree. I didn't mean to counter the whole argument. Just that one particular statement.