Does Apple Have A Music Monopoly Issue?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Larry Dignan over at ZDNet, examines the latest predicament Apple finds itself in, a lawsuit over its digital music monopoly. I am certainly no expert here but with its massive market share and proprietary format, it is difficult to see how Apple will avoid being forced to open the iPod and iTunes to other formats.

Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice and restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets. Apple's CEO Steve Jobs has himself compared Apple's digital music dominance to Microsoft's personal computer operating system dominance."
Click to expand...
 
I don't think it's fair to call them a monopoly. You buy the product and you get the services for that product. If you don't like how the business operates, there are many other services out there that can be used.


I like to think of apple's ipod more of like a service that you pay for... kinda like an upscale store... you pay more for the product so you can get that exclusive service.
 
Not any more so than the fact Mac OS runs on Mac hardware, and .Mac services are for Macs.

Last I checked there where many many other options in the market.
 
I dont see how they are one. There are tons of other choices to go with in the MP3 market. The Ipod was and still is the most successful one. If you dont like Apple then go with a Zune, Creative, etc. There are many choices to choose from and many music providers to choose from. Napster and Itunes happens to be the most popular right now. Dont see how this is a monopoly at all.
 
I don't get this.

the iPod is not *the* sole digital music player, and the iTunes store isn't the *sole* digital music provider.

Are people upset because the iPod can't play protected WMA's from the Zune store?
Or are they upset that their Zune/iRiver/Nomad can't play AAC's from the iTunes store?

That's like saying "Well golly gawrsh mr. judgeship your honor sir, my nintendo wii won't play xbox 360 games!"


It's hardly a monopoly. They just have a very good foothold in the marketplace.
Just like Macs and OS X are a "niche" computing platform, so are the other digital music players.
 
KaosDG said:
I don't get this.

the iPod is not *the* sole digital music player, and the iTunes store isn't the *sole* digital music provider.

Are people upset because the iPod can't play protected WMA's from the Zune store?
Or are they upset that their Zune/iRiver/Nomad can't play AAC's from the iTunes store?

That's like saying "Well golly gawrsh mr. judgeship your honor sir, my nintendo wii won't play xbox 360 games!"


It's hardly a monopoly. They just have a very good foothold in the marketplace.
Just like Macs and OS X are a "niche" computing platform, so are the other digital music players.
Click to expand...

If we were to use the same model for CD players, you'd either have to buy your CD's from the same place you buy your CD Player from....and if you decided that next time around you wanted a Denon instead of a Sony, you'd have to buy all new CDs.

This isn't comparable to an OS. It's a CD player. The only reason that Fairplay isn't available to everyone else is because Apple wants to make it uneconomical to switch brands. As for Zune's DRM, it's just as bad, and I'd bad mouth MS just as much if htey ever become a major player.

It is completley unacceptable that a player that support M4A or WMA can't play files from these companies, simply because they want to lock you into their players in perpetuity.
 
The problem is that the chips used to power the I-pod natively support WMA. Apple intentionally cripples that feature.

Why would apple intentionally cripple a feature that makes it's product more robust? Could it be so that previous users of I-pods wouldn't consider switching to a different brand when their I-pod bit the dust?

The wii/x360 analogy doesn't fit because the two products never could play each other's software. The hardware wouldn't support it. The I-pod, however, is intentionally crippled to force users to use i-Tunes and the apple music store exclusively, and the format is proprietary so that once you have bought music from the I-tunes store, it has to be used on an I-pod.

Then, what about linux users? There is no I-tunes for linux.

On another note, I find the whole situation terribly ironic. I mean, apple (along with others) was crusading against Microsoft because Microsoft had the dominant operating system and they began to tie another Microsoft product (Explorer) into the fundamental workings of the OS. Microsoft was hit hard. The funny thing is, unlike I-tunes and I-pods, you could still use competing software (Netscape) with the OS.
 
Punx_Clever said:
The problem is that the chips used to power the I-pod natively support WMA. Apple intentionally cripples that feature.

Why would apple intentionally cripple a feature that makes it's product more robust? Could it be so that previous users of I-pods wouldn't consider switching to a different brand when their I-pod bit the dust?

The wii/x360 analogy doesn't fit because the two products never could play each other's software. The hardware wouldn't support it. The I-pod, however, is intentionally crippled to force users to use i-Tunes and the apple music store exclusively, and the format is proprietary so that once you have bought music from the I-tunes store, it has to be used on an I-pod.

Then, what about linux users? There is no I-tunes for linux.

On another note, I find the whole situation terribly ironic. I mean, apple (along with others) was crusading against Microsoft because Microsoft had the dominant operating system and they began to tie another Microsoft product (Explorer) into the fundamental workings of the OS. Microsoft was hit hard. The funny thing is, unlike I-tunes and I-pods, you could still use competing software (Netscape) with the OS.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree (as stated above), but I actually think the entire IE portion of the anti-trust fight was dumb. IE was free, so who cares. Where they deserved the fight was on the forced bundling of windows with PCs, the entire OS/2 debacle, the policy of making sure Lotus didn't work before a new Windows went out the door and so on.

I really don't care if they disable WMA or not, but I do care that they have a closed DRM that they wont license to other companies.

That said, anti-trust won't happen this early in the game. Most music still comes from CDs. If I was the music labels, I would have long ago touted the superior audio quality of CDs over Lossy files. At this point, it's probably too late....and frankly, most DAP earphones are incapable of playing anything over 16khz. The good news is the kids will never notice that they lost their hearing over that frequency, because they never will have heard it in the first place.
 
The point isn't what the iPod can / can't do...

The point is that people are crying monopoly over something that isn't anywhere NEAR a monopoly.

You aren't forced to buy music from iTunes, and you aren't forced to use an iPod.

But, if you CHOOSE to buy music from itunes then you have to use their player. (and choice being the key here)

If you choose to use the Zune store, well then you need a Zune.

You have a choice. Whether or not it's the "popular" or dominant choice is another matter.

Since when did market competition mean having a better lawyer? sheesh.
 
Who would buy tunes from istore anyway ... the only two experiences I have had, with the istore, have been horrible.

The first song I purchased, didn't show up on my purchased music list, and I had to wait damn near a week to be able to listen to the song. The second time I tried, months later, I tried to purchase an entire cd and the damn payment part of istore was down, so I couldn't.

I don't even use itunes for my ipod anymore, the program just plain blows. Anapod explorer works infinitely better.

If apple it trying to curb music piracy, by using istore, they fail.
 
Whether or not they are a "monopoly" will be up to the courts.


But...the people that are saying this isn't a monopoly because there are a lot of players to choose from, that argument didn't float for Microsoft.

Hell, not only is there a bunch of alternatives to Microsoft's operating systems, almost all of them are FREE and the courts still ruled against them.

Same goes for Windows Media Player, lots of alternatives, almost all are FREE...EU ruled against them.

All I am just saying is that if Apple gets smacked down over this....and they might....I wouldn't be surprised.
 
the issue isnt the ipod, it isnt itunes.

It is the integration between the two, and the fact that the music is locked to their products.
 
Since Apple has a stranglehold on the market, don't think they aren't playing a little "Intel" here by offering incentives to music and movie studios to make sure iTunes is the ONLY store to get certain items. Even if they aren't, some businesses are only releasing certain products on iTunes because thats where they see the best return on investment.

There are soooo many BETTER digital players out there, but to get the best choices on content...you have to use iTunes....and iPod. I myself use a Creative Zen Vision M and Napster...but there are several things I can't find on some sites that is only available on iTunes.

And for Jobs to compare this to MS?! Come on Stevie, you did this to yourself by making your OS work on your hardware only. That's like MS making their OS only work on Dells. I would switch over to--or at least own one--Apple OS based machine if I could put it on whatever I want. Trapping me in overpriced, underpowered hardware just to get a good OS? No wonder they have less market share than Linux...
 
KaosDG said:
The point isn't what the iPod can / can't do...

The point is that people are crying monopoly over something that isn't anywhere NEAR a monopoly.

You aren't forced to buy music from iTunes, and you aren't forced to use an iPod.

But, if you CHOOSE to buy music from itunes then you have to use their player. (and choice being the key here)

If you choose to use the Zune store, well then you need a Zune.

You have a choice. Whether or not it's the "popular" or dominant choice is another matter.

Since when did market competition mean having a better lawyer? sheesh.
Click to expand...

Zune's model is as it is only because of Apple. They're on record as saying they'll open up their DRM if Apple opens up theirs.

And this isn't competition, it's anti-competition. It's trying to get people to stick with your product down the road, not because it's the best product (though it might be), but because they've got hundreds of dollars sunk into music from your store which can't be played on any other player. Unlike a cassette vs a Record or 8-Track or CD, the incompatibility is artificial. It's incompatible to make sure you buy an iPod to replace your iPod.

As i said earlier, this is the equivalent of Sony saying you must buy another Sony CD player or you'll have to replace all your CDs to play music on the Denon you really want.
 
KaosDG said:
The point isn't what the iPod can / can't do...

The point is that people are crying monopoly over something that isn't anywhere NEAR a monopoly.

You aren't forced to buy music from iTunes, and you aren't forced to use an iPod.

But, if you CHOOSE to buy music from itunes then you have to use their player. (and choice being the key here)

If you choose to use the Zune store, well then you need a Zune.

You have a choice. Whether or not it's the "popular" or dominant choice is another matter.

Since when did market competition mean having a better lawyer? sheesh.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, you aren't forced to use I-tunes, or the I-pod... but if you have been using it for a couple years, have an extensive music collection bought from the I-tunes store, and want to switch to a different media player (IE, zune, creative labs, etc) you cannot do that without losing all of the music you bought and paid for. That is the problem. That is why I didn't buy an I-pod.

So yes, it is what the I-pod can and can't do, it is what you can and can't do with the music you buy. It's not like the music couldn't possibly work on another player (in the way that a wii wont play x360 games), and its not like apple couldn't use a non-proprietary format. Apple is restricting the use of their audio players with a proprietary format and selling files that, for no other reason than apple wont allow it, cannot be used with any other hardware. And, as such, users are forced to continue to use apple products on pain of losing the ability to enjoy their audio collections.

That is why there is an anti-trust lawsuit.
 
Punx_Clever said:
You are absolutely right, you aren't forced to use I-tunes, or the I-pod... but if you have been using it for a couple years, have an extensive music collection bought from the I-tunes store, and want to switch to a different media player (IE, zune, creative labs, etc) you cannot do that without losing all of the music you bought and paid for. That is the problem. That is why I didn't buy an I-pod.

So yes, it is what the I-pod can and can't do, it is what you can and can't do with the music you buy. It's not like the music couldn't possibly work on another player (in the way that a wii wont play x360 games), and its not like apple couldn't use a non-proprietary format. Apple is restricting the use of their audio players with a proprietary format and selling files that, for no other reason than apple wont allow it, cannot be used with any other hardware. And, as such, users are forced to continue to use apple products on pain of losing the ability to enjoy their audio collections.

That is why there is an anti-trust lawsuit.
Click to expand...

There are easy and even supported ways of getting around "losing" all of your music.
 
KaosDG said:
There are easy and even supported ways of getting around "losing" all of your music.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you don't mind doing a LOSSY TO LOSSY conversion. Hey, you can play that CD for the Sony CD player on the Denon. All you have to do is dump it to cassette and then put it on CD. If you actually care about audio quality (and perhaps most don't), then converting form AAC to MP3, vorbis or WMA is completely unacceptable.
 
nilepez said:
Zune's model is as it is only because of Apple. They're on record as saying they'll open up their DRM if Apple opens up theirs.

And this isn't competition, it's anti-competition. It's trying to get people to stick with your product down the road, not because it's the best product (though it might be), but because they've got hundreds of dollars sunk into music from your store which can't be played on any other player. Unlike a cassette vs a Record or 8-Track or CD, the incompatibility is artificial. It's incompatible to make sure you buy an iPod to replace your iPod.

As i said earlier, this is the equivalent of Sony saying you must buy another Sony CD player or you'll have to replace all your CDs to play music on the Denon you really want.
Click to expand...

The model exists though because of the paranoid music industry.
I'm sure that if Apple could get away with DRM-less downloads, EVERYONE would follow suit. (and my friend beelzebub might be in need of that sweater my grandma knit for him)

Instead of lobbying and litigating against the companies who, in order to offer online music downloads, have to bend to the will of the RIAA / MPAAs of the world, why don't we focus on the root cause of it?
 
KaosDG said:
The model exists though because of the paranoid music industry.
I'm sure that if Apple could get away with DRM-less downloads, EVERYONE would follow suit. (and my friend beelzebub might be in need of that sweater my grandma knit for him)

Instead of lobbying and litigating against the companies who, in order to offer online music downloads, have to bend to the will of the RIAA / MPAAs of the world, why don't we focus on the root cause of it?
Click to expand...

No, DRM exists because of the paranoid music industry. The "My DRM only works on my player" model exists to lock people into your player.
 
I'm sure that if Apple could get away with DRM-less downloads, EVERYONE would follow suit. (and my friend beelzebub might be in need of that sweater my grandma knit for him)

Instead of lobbying and litigating against the companies who, in order to offer online music downloads, have to bend to the will of the RIAA / MPAAs of the world, why don't we focus on the root cause of it?
Click to expand...

Amen. It looks as though that is in fact starting to happen as a few people out there are gonna try to offer songs in mp3 format with no DRM for a few months and see how it goes.

In the mean time, the RIAA is suing people for TRILLIONS of dollars, even though they refused to collect the money they had sitting aside for them in the Russian government escrow because they didn't like how much they were collecting...
 
nilepez said:
No, DRM exists because of the paranoid music industry. The "My DRM only works on my player" model exists to lock people into your player.
Click to expand...

Of course, because Apple, just like every other company in existance, is there to make a profit.
 
Just like standard oil was just out to make a profit...

The only music you can play on an I-pod is I-tunes music just like the only oil you could ship on Standard's train network was Standard Oil.

It limits competition and hurts the consumer.
 
Punx_Clever said:
Just like standard oil was just out to make a profit...

The only music you can play on an I-pod is I-tunes music just like the only oil you could ship on Standard's train network was Standard Oil.

It limits competition and hurts the consumer.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, since you can play plain ol' mp3s on it.

the only place you can play itunes music is on an ipod or in itunes. (doesn't that make sense?)
It's a privelege, not a right.

I don't see how it's limiting competition as there is plenty of competition around.
 
Steve said:
Whether or not they are a "monopoly" will be up to the courts.


But...the people that are saying this isn't a monopoly because there are a lot of players to choose from, that argument didn't float for Microsoft.

Hell, not only is there a bunch of alternatives to Microsoft's operating systems, almost all of them are FREE and the courts still ruled against them.

Same goes for Windows Media Player, lots of alternatives, almost all are FREE...EU ruled against them.

All I am just saying is that if Apple gets smacked down over this....and they might....I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly would like to see Apples DRM open up to more players, but I'd like the implementation to be through the iTunes Application. If I could access and search many store through one application then I'm good to go. Oh wait, that's what a browser is for. Well iTunes is still a great music Application. I use Beat Port and eMusic quite a bit. No restrictions and I can load those file onto an iPod.

As for a monopoly, they're close, but not quite there. They'll have many angles to argue. However, I'm all for opening it up, the more alternatives the better.
 
One of the major issues here is disclosure to customers. The fact is that most of the average consumers who use iTunes have NO idea what DRM is and what it means. Right now that hasn’t been an issue because everyone has been buying iPods. The vast majority of iTunes customers would be horrified to learn that they will have to buy only iPods for the rest of their life, unless they want to loose their entire music collection.

I agree with everyone that this isn’t a technical issue. Even without any help from Apple, I am sure Microsoft could have designed the Zune to play AAC files. The problem is that Apple would then sue them for patent infringement. They would sue anyone who produced a product that played content from iTunes. The only reason for them to behave in this manner is to maintain and grow an illegal monopoly.

However, I do agree that the recording industry is ultimately at fault here. Unfortunately, the recording industry has purchased immunity from the federal government (why didn’t the Sony execs that approved the rootkit go to jail?) and can’t be prosecuted. So it will be a LONG time before we can truly deal with the root of the issue.

While there are alternatives to iTunes, most either suck or have issues with legality. Allofmp3 is an excellent example of a great site that is getting hassled by the RIAA
It is ironic that the United States will allow China to become part of the WTO (despite massive human rights violations and the fact that they devalue their own currency to hurt American businesses), yet they are using allofmp3.com as an excuse to deny Russia entry. Too bad all of those imprisoned journalists and activists in China don’t have the help of the RIAA.
 
KaosDG said:
Of course, because Apple, just like every other company in existance, is there to make a profit.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is that they are using iTunes to lock people into their player in perpetuity.

Do you honestly believe that if Sony had captured the CD market and made it so that CD that their player played could only be played on their player, that they wouldn't have been sued and LOST?

Apple makes sh!t loads of money on each DAP sold (the mark up to the wholesaler is huge and the markup at retail is another 70%). Allowing them to lock people into a product is anticompetitive. If this continues, Apple could have a POS product compared to Brand X, but nobody will buy Brand X, because it can't play their iTunes songs.


KaosDG said:
Punx_Clever said:
Just like standard oil was just out to make a profit...

The only music you can play on an I-pod is I-tunes music just like the only oil you could ship on Standard's train network was Standard Oil.

It limits competition and hurts the consumer.
Click to expand...


Incorrect, since you can play plain ol' mp3s on it.

the only place you can play itunes music is on an ipod or in itunes. (doesn't that make sense?)
It's a privelege, not a right.

I don't see how it's limiting competition as there is plenty of competition around.
Click to expand...

Fine, let's say that 5 years from now you've bought 500 songs from iTunes. In that time, the iPod has clearly become a lesser player compared to other players. Are you going to just rebuy those 500 songs?

Don't tell me how you can convert them to another format, because it requires a loss in quality to do it (a loss that is only necessary, because Apple wants to make sure you feel the pain if you try to switch brands).

Most don't support AAC, because there's no point, since the DRM is proprietary.
 
stonedwaldo420 said:
I agree with everyone that this isn’t a technical issue. Even without any help from Apple, I am sure Microsoft could have designed the Zune to play AAC files. The problem is that Apple would then sue them for patent infringement. They would sue anyone who produced a product that played content from iTunes. The only reason for them to behave in this manner is to maintain and grow an illegal monopoly.
Click to expand...

Actually, if MS were to take playback iTunes purchases, they'd probably be subject to prosecution under the DMCA, since it'd almost certainly require circumventing Apples DRM to do it. Playing back AAC (really M4A) has nothing to do with apple, as they just license the technology from Fraunhofer.

While there are alternatives to iTunes, most either suck or have issues with legality. Allofmp3 is an excellent example of a great site that is getting hassled by the RIAA
Click to expand...

They're not getting sued because of the lack of DRM, they're getting sued because the industry thinks they're ripping htem off. The truth is that they are. However, they are not breaking any Russian laws. The only way i can see that they hae a shot is if there's some way of fighting this over illegally importing music to the U.S.

When you buy an import, you end up paying some sort of tarif on the album. I find that silly, when the same company owns the rights to the album in both countries, but in this case, allofmp3 is selling music for less than royalties an artist would get in the U.S., nevermind the amount the label gets.

My guess is if all files in this country were 100% DRM free, allofmp3 would still be just as popular, because they allow you to get music for next to nothing without the risk of lawsuits (because it's not legal in Russia)
 
It's about the fact that apple is basically extorting you to buy their products.


Say at one point in time you think that ipod and itunes is the best at what the market can provide. So you buy one and download a bunch of music. So it's time to upgrade again -- get a new machine. While deciding which new machine to buy, you notice you have 3 choices:

1) Go for another apple machine.
2) Go for a non apple machine.
3) Don't get a knew one.

#3 is obviously out of the question. You decide that apple's ipods are now to expensive and that they are not the best anymore, so you choose to go with #2. There's a problem now. If you do go with #2 you end up losing all your songs. Sure there are ways to circumvent this, but you're circumventing copyright protection. So, unless you have deep pockets, you have to buy another Ipod.

It's not the initial buying process that creates the monopoly, it's the fact that unless oyu're willing to lose tons of money on music, you can't switch.
 
Well, monopoly or no, Apple won me over after tooling around with my first iPod the other day. (Dad got a shuffle for Christmas)

I loved everything about it. Hour long podcasts at a few megs...

Actually, my 2 piece of shit Creative players PUSHED me to Apple. No more hard drive players for me. And the "radio" "FEATURE" is bogus cause it can't get any damn stations.

I shoulda known better to buy another creative after the first one shit itself...

I'll be ordering a new Shuffle when I get back from skiing. iTunes was a dream to work with on my dad's rig.
 
mdameron said:
Well, monopoly or no, Apple won me over after tooling around with my first iPod the other day. (Dad got a shuffle for Christmas)

I loved everything about it. Hour long podcasts at a few megs...

Actually, my 2 piece of shit Creative players PUSHED me to Apple. No more hard drive players for me. And the "radio" "FEATURE" is bogus cause it can't get any damn stations.

I shoulda known better to buy another creative after the first one shit itself...

I'll be ordering a new Shuffle when I get back from skiing. iTunes was a dream to work with on my dad's rig.
Click to expand...

This is the exact situation I'm speaking of. What if someone does come out with a better player. At the same time, what happens if apple itune goes down the gutter with you. After all that money spent on music at itunes, would you be willing to just simple switch to the other player or would you stay with apple since all your songs are there already?
 
qkool said:
This is the exact situation I'm speaking of. What if someone does come out with a better player. At the same time, what happens if apple itune goes down the gutter with you. After all that money spent on music at itunes, would you be willing to just simple switch to the other player or would you stay with apple since all your songs are there already?
Click to expand...

Well, see I might buy 3 songs max from iTunes. I see your point though. The proprietary AAC format really does bug me, but not because of DAPs at all. Rather, I have an MP3/WMA player in my truck. Burn a data CD with 200 songs, play them in my truck. Can't do that with AAC or protected WMA. THAT bugs me. But, I could get an ipod deck and solve that, but I don't want to do that.

For me, iTunes will be used to sync the iPod, get a handful of free podcasts... and maybe purchase a couple songs and a book or something. I've had the same music library for like 6 years now. My music tastes stay the same. I know exactly why a lot of you hate it... but after tinkering with my dad's new ipod and itunes, I really enjoyed that it just worked.

I fucked around with my 2 zens for the longest time because they had that "plays for sure" BS. You can't just plug it in and drag songs over in my computer. You have to have WMP10, this enabled, that enabled, blah blah. Using the CD that they came with was pointless too... it was all just complicated horse shit. Granted, I did get it working cause I'm not a noob, it was just a lot of unnecessary stuff. That's my beef with creative though.

All in all, I wish we could just buy Mp3's instead of anything else. I don't care about lossless. 192 cbr sounds find with me. I just want to take my collection from hard drive to DAP to mp3 deck in my truck seemlessly. Seems that the best way to do that is an ipod with an ipod deck in my truck. iTunes will see about $5 from me, tops.
 
Actually I take that back. I just ordered a shuffle. I'll have it in hand as soon as I'm back from skiing. :D
 
Apple doesn't really have a monopoly issue per se. The I Pods more or less the "in" thing and are quite popular. With them comes the ITunes store. So its more of a popularity thing. Oh well, lets see what the courts say :rolleyes:
 
Actually, now that I think about it, there are no LEGAL ways to get around losing your audio collection. Any circumvention of DRM software is a violation of the DMCA... so yeah, you do, legally, lose all of your music if you switch to a different player.
 
> "so yeah, you do, legally, lose all of your music if you switch to a different player."

> "The vast majority of iTunes customers would be horrified to learn that they will have to buy only iPods for the rest of their life, unless they want to loose their entire music collection."

Lose your entire collection?

Let's imagine a time when you had a huge collection of tapes. Then, you started buying CDs. You've still got your tapes, though.

You buy a new car, and it doesn't have a tape player in it. Well, you've still got the tapes, and you will find a way to get the music off the tapes and onto CDs.

So, you've got an iPod full of songs, and you decide to buy another brand of music player. You've still got your old iPod with all your songs on it. You didn't really "lose" anything.

You can't play a cassette in a CD player, and you can't play an AAC file on a Creative Zen. But, there are ways to move from one format to another.
 
MScrip said:
> "so yeah, you do, legally, lose all of your music if you switch to a different player."

> "The vast majority of iTunes customers would be horrified to learn that they will have to buy only iPods for the rest of their life, unless they want to loose their entire music collection."

Lose your entire collection?

Let's imagine a time when you had a huge collection of tapes. Then, you started buying CDs. You've still got your tapes, though.

You buy a new car, and it doesn't have a tape player in it. Well, you've still got the tapes, and you will find a way to get the music off the tapes and onto CDs.

So, you've got an iPod full of songs, and you decide to buy another brand of music player. You've still got your old iPod with all your songs on it. You didn't really "lose" anything.

You can't play a cassette in a CD player, and you can't play an AAC file on a Creative Zen. But, there are ways to move from one format to another.
Click to expand...

That's a nice theory and all but there are some important differences. Namely when I went from cassette to CD there was a real technical incompatibility. Tape vs optical media. There is no way to get a tape to play on a DVD player. On the other hand, the digital music on an ipod is locked in by artificial means. The only reason that an itunes AAC file won't play on a Zune is because Apple doesn't want it to. (Yes, Zune plays AAC). This is nothing more than an artificial lock-in to maintain its dominance. Apple has even gone as far to flash itunes customers to ensure that itunes is the only game in town for ipod owners.

So, they make it so you can't legally move your music library to other players.
They roll out a required flash update to break compatibility with other music services.
They disable the hardware's ability to play other formats.

This is all extremely anti-consumer. It boggles my mind why people actually defend this.
 
griffinhart said:
That's a nice theory and all but there are some important differences. Namely when I went from cassette to CD there was a real technical incompatibility. Tape vs optical media. There is no way to get a tape to play on a DVD player. On the other hand, the digital music on an ipod is locked in by artificial means. The only reason that an itunes AAC file won't play on a Zune is because Apple doesn't want it to. (Yes, Zune plays AAC). This is nothing more than an artificial lock-in to maintain its dominance. Apple has even gone as far to flash itunes customers to ensure that itunes is the only game in town for ipod owners.

So, they make it so you can't legally move your music library to other players.
They roll out a required flash update to break compatibility with other music services.
They disable the hardware's ability to play other formats.

This is all extremely anti-consumer. It boggles my mind why people actually defend this.
Click to expand...



So according to your logic, Ferarri, Apple, Sun, Microsoft, Lamborghini, Sony, (insert just about every major company who makes a product and provides a service) is a monopoly and are anti-consumer?

Sun makes machines with thier own OS
Ferarri only services their own cars, not fords, doges or other cheap cars
Microsoft has their own software on their own OS
Lamborghini doesn't service cheap cars either
Sony has the UMD and many other proprietary media for their devices

list goes on and on.


So pretty soon we will according to your logic be having to sue ford for not honoring warranty on a dodge. Or pretty soon we will need to go after Burger king for not selling a Big Mac :rolleyes:
 
Ockie said:
So according to your logic, Ferarri, Apple, Sun, Microsoft, Lamborghini, Sony, (insert just about every major company who makes a product and provides a service) is a monopoly and are anti-consumer?

Sun makes machines with thier own OS
Ferarri only services their own cars, not fords, doges or other cheap cars
Microsoft has their own software on their own OS
Lamborghini doesn't service cheap cars either
Sony has the UMD and many other proprietary media for their devices

list goes on and on.


So pretty soon we will according to your logic be having to sue ford for not honoring warranty on a dodge. Or pretty soon we will need to go after Burger king for not selling a Big Mac :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow, you are stretching things.
Sun makes machines with thier own OS

There is nothing wrong with Apple selling music for their own players. That's not in contention.

Ferarri only services their own cars, not fords, doges or other cheap cars

And this has to do with lock in how?

Microsoft has their own software on their own OS.

And if MS stopped you from being able to run commercial software on Windows there would be a serious problem. If MS patched every Windows PC so they couldn't run any software package that competes with them everything would be ok with you? That's essentially what Apple did to Real. They flashed any ipod that uses itunes so they were no longer compatible with music purchased from the Real store. Why you can't grasp this as being anti-consumer and wrong is just beyond me.

Lamborghini doesn't service cheap cars either

Again, relevant how?

Sony has the UMD and many other proprietary media for their devices

Not the same thing. Apple's AAC file format isn't proprietary. It's used by many other players. It's the DRM that apple uses and refuses to license that's the issue. Especially since they are the defacto market. This is more like Sony producing DVD's and CD's that only work on Sony players.

Just as MS business practices got them in trouble because they are 90% of the market, Apple having more than 90% of the online music market will mean that they will be called for predatory business practices. In the end it limits consumer choice and harms the competition because they can't compete when there is that sort of lock in. In cases like that anti-trust laws are invoked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top