Federal lawsuit over iTunes/iPod monopoly

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: episodic
So why isn't Microsoft and their music services not subject to the same thing.

Lawyer's haven't caught up with Microsoft's similar scheme.

The thing about the iTunes music store (lawsuit is about copy protection schemes) is that anything purchased from the store is locked into your iPod and iTunes. Sure, you can rip to CDs and re-encode, but there is the loss of quality there (lossy to lossy conversion). Also, the same goes for going from WMA to whatever works on your iPod. The lawsuit is probably more focused on opening up purchased music for all D.A.P.s instead of just locking iTunes music to iPods (and of course, getting some money in the process).

Originally posted by: episodic
I hate this aspect of our law - you work hard - you create a product people want - you don't give it away - you are sued out of existence.

Right.... :roll:

You're right. Maybe I should sue Sony because I can't play XBox 360 games on a Playstation3. Or maybe I should sue them because I can't play HD-DVD's on the PS3. They are obviously trying to make it hard for people that own 360 games and HD-DVDs. :roll:

You really have no clue how this stuff works, do you?

If Sony was the only manufacturer of game consoles and they used a standard dvd player that would only play sony-branded DVD media, then you'd have a case. Other than that, your analogy makes absolutely no sense...

You are the clueless one. Apple created their own codec and their own player. Just like Sony and MS did with their consoles. They created their own consoles, and they set up the software to ONLY work with their system. MS even set up a network that only allows XBox's on it. How is that different that what Apple is doing? Apple's player isn't even that proprietary. You can play your own MP3s on it all you want. So what's the problem?

You don't like Apple's products? Go buy something else. There are PLENTY of other MP3 players on the market.

Well for one, I doubt that either sony or xbox have majority market share in the video game market, so it will never concern DoJ. However, apple had 80-90% market share on mp3 players and they are actively trying to stop other companies from being able to play drm music on their mp3 player, which is the definition of anticompetitive behavior.

WTF are you talking about? Apple now has to allow for every type of music format to be played on their player? The most popular audio format (besides CD audio) is MP3s, and iPods have NO problems playing them. And with your logic, if the XBox controlled 80% of the console market they would then need to allow for any other console onto their network that THEY created? Give me a freakin' break. Just because iPods are by far the most popular DAP, that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. There are PLENTY of other MP3 players on the market. Like I said, don't like Apple products? Don't buy them.

IMO they screwed themselves pretty bad with the Real Media debacle - the fact that they took proactive measure to keep real from playing on ipods kills a lot of their defense. Now they can't play it off as "We only wanted an enhanced product functionality for the consumers and licensing FairPlay wasn't possible as we'd have to reveal our trade secrets" . Real figured out how to make FairPlay work without licensing and theres no argument why apple's action to stop them was at all better for the consumer.

Again, another ridiculous comment. iPods can play one of the most popular audio fromats around, MP3s. Apple doesn't need to support all formats. And the fact that iPods support MP3s throws out the whole monopoly argument.

 

[episodic]

Stupidity is all this is:

Ford's parts don't work in Chevies
HD-DVD discs don't work in Blue Ray players
Avery labels are needed for some of their label machines (avery pawns the label market)
EIDE drives wont work on SATA connectors
Apple software won't work on PC
Linux software wont work on pc
Photoshop won't work on linux
Flathead screwdrivers won't turn phillips screws
Cingular phones don't work on verizon networks
Prepaid cellphones won't work on each other's networks
My coffeemate coffee filter basket won't fit on my nonbranded machine
I can't play cd's in my old 8-track player
I can't play cd's in my mp3 player
My phone line isn't open to other businesses to sell me service (it really isn't where I'm at)
My canon printer can't use epson inks
my epson printer can't use canon inks
My brother has a new canon printer that can't use off brand inks anymore (bummer)
My casio graphing calculator can't run TI programs
My DVD player doesn't play quicktime movies - but does play divx movies

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: episodic
So why isn't Microsoft and their music services not subject to the same thing.

Lawyer's haven't caught up with Microsoft's similar scheme.

The thing about the iTunes music store (lawsuit is about copy protection schemes) is that anything purchased from the store is locked into your iPod and iTunes. Sure, you can rip to CDs and re-encode, but there is the loss of quality there (lossy to lossy conversion). Also, the same goes for going from WMA to whatever works on your iPod. The lawsuit is probably more focused on opening up purchased music for all D.A.P.s instead of just locking iTunes music to iPods (and of course, getting some money in the process).

Originally posted by: episodic
I hate this aspect of our law - you work hard - you create a product people want - you don't give it away - you are sued out of existence.

Right.... :roll:

You're right. Maybe I should sue Sony because I can't play XBox 360 games on a Playstation3. Or maybe I should sue them because I can't play HD-DVD's on the PS3. They are obviously trying to make it hard for people that own 360 games and HD-DVDs. :roll:

You really have no clue how this stuff works, do you?

If Sony was the only manufacturer of game consoles and they used a standard dvd player that would only play sony-branded DVD media, then you'd have a case. Other than that, your analogy makes absolutely no sense...

You are the clueless one. Apple created their own codec and their own player. Just like Sony and MS did with their consoles. They created their own consoles, and they set up the software to ONLY work with their system. MS even set up a network that only allows XBox's on it. How is that different that what Apple is doing? Apple's player isn't even that proprietary. You can play your own MP3s on it all you want. So what's the problem?

You don't like Apple's products? Go buy something else. There are PLENTY of other MP3 players on the market.

Well for one, I doubt that either sony or xbox have majority market share in the video game market, so it will never concern DoJ. However, apple had 80-90% market share on mp3 players and they are actively trying to stop other companies from being able to play drm music on their mp3 player, which is the definition of anticompetitive behavior.

WTF are you talking about? Apple now has to allow for every type of music format to be played on their player? The most popular audio format (besides CD audio) is MP3s, and iPods have NO problems playing them. And with your logic, if the XBox controlled 80% of the console market they would then need to allow for any other console onto their network that THEY created? Give me a freakin' break. Just because iPods are by far the most popular DAP, that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. There are PLENTY of other MP3 players on the market. Like I said, don't like Apple products? Don't buy them.

IMO they screwed themselves pretty bad with the Real Media debacle - the fact that they took proactive measure to keep real from playing on ipods kills a lot of their defense. Now they can't play it off as "We only wanted an enhanced product functionality for the consumers and licensing FairPlay wasn't possible as we'd have to reveal our trade secrets" . Real figured out how to make FairPlay work without licensing and theres no argument why apple's action to stop them was at all better for the consumer.

Again, another ridiculous comment. iPods can play one of the most popular audio fromats around, MP3s. Apple doesn't need to support all formats. And the fact that iPods support MP3s throws out the whole monopoly argument.

You're repeating yourself rather than arguing a point...

There's a difference between BLOCKING others' content on your mp3 player and making it support everyone elses content. Apple is doing the former, which is anti-competitive behavior considering their market share in the mp3 player market (90%?). Noone is saying that apple has to make ipods play WMV files, but rather apple shouldn't sue companies that figure out how to convert their files into fairplay compatible format that works on an ipod.

I don't think you actually know what happened with the Real Media thing either - Real figured out how to encode the music from their store into fair-play like format that worked on ipods. Apple took them to court and changed stuff around to break the compatibility.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: halik
You're repeating yourself rather than arguing a point...

There's a difference between BLOCKING others' content on your mp3 player and making it support everyone elses content. Apple is doing the former, which is anti-competitive behavior considering their market share in the mp3 player market (90%?). Noone is saying that apple has to make ipods play WMV files, but rather apple shouldn't sue companies that figure out how to convert their files into fairplay compatible format that works on an ipod.

I don't think you actually know what happened with the Real Media thing either - Real figured out how to encode the music from their store into fair-play like format that worked on ipods. Apple took them to court and changed stuff around to break the compatibility.

I'm repeating myself because you obviously have a problem understanding the point. Apple is only responsible for two advertised formats on their players, AAC and MP3. They do not have to allow any other formats on their players. MS BLOCKS ANY modified XBoxs on their network. MS also BLOCKS any non-XBox console from their network. Sony BLOCKS ANY hacks on their PSP by releasing updated firmware. Apple doesn't have to allow jack squat on their player except the formats they advertise they support. If companies want to release a universal codec that just about every player can play including the iPod, they can release it in an MP3 form (DRM free). Now if Apple advertised iPods supported AAC and MP3 and all of a sudden yanked the MP3 support through a firmware update via iTunes, that would be another story.

The REAL situation is a non issue.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I havent read the whole thing but...i dont see how apple is even close to a monopoly. There are more options to get your music and to play it then there needs to be.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: episodic
So why isn't Microsoft and their music services not subject to the same thing.

Lawyer's haven't caught up with Microsoft's similar scheme.

The thing about the iTunes music store (lawsuit is about copy protection schemes) is that anything purchased from the store is locked into your iPod and iTunes. Sure, you can rip to CDs and re-encode, but there is the loss of quality there (lossy to lossy conversion). Also, the same goes for going from WMA to whatever works on your iPod. The lawsuit is probably more focused on opening up purchased music for all D.A.P.s instead of just locking iTunes music to iPods (and of course, getting some money in the process).

Originally posted by: episodic
I hate this aspect of our law - you work hard - you create a product people want - you don't give it away - you are sued out of existence.

Right.... :roll:

You're right. Maybe I should sue Sony because I can't play XBox 360 games on a Playstation3. Or maybe I should sue them because I can't play HD-DVD's on the PS3. They are obviously trying to make it hard for people that own 360 games and HD-DVDs. :roll:

You really have no clue how this stuff works, do you?

If Sony was the only manufacturer of game consoles and they used a standard dvd player that would only play sony-branded DVD media, then you'd have a case. Other than that, your analogy makes absolutely no sense...

You are the clueless one. Apple created their own codec and their own player. Just like Sony and MS did with their consoles. They created their own consoles, and they set up the software to ONLY work with their system. MS even set up a network that only allows XBox's on it. How is that different that what Apple is doing? Apple's player isn't even that proprietary. You can play your own MP3s on it all you want. So what's the problem?

You don't like Apple's products? Go buy something else. There are PLENTY of other MP3 players on the market.

Well for one, I doubt that either sony or xbox have majority market share in the video game market, so it will never concern DoJ. However, apple had 80-90% market share on mp3 players and they are actively trying to stop other companies from being able to play drm music on their mp3 player, which is the definition of anticompetitive behavior.

WTF are you talking about? Apple now has to allow for every type of music format to be played on their player? The most popular audio format (besides CD audio) is MP3s, and iPods have NO problems playing them. And with your logic, if the XBox controlled 80% of the console market they would then need to allow for any other console onto their network that THEY created? Give me a freakin' break. Just because iPods are by far the most popular DAP, that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. There are PLENTY of other MP3 players on the market. Like I said, don't like Apple products? Don't buy them.

IMO they screwed themselves pretty bad with the Real Media debacle - the fact that they took proactive measure to keep real from playing on ipods kills a lot of their defense. Now they can't play it off as "We only wanted an enhanced product functionality for the consumers and licensing FairPlay wasn't possible as we'd have to reveal our trade secrets" . Real figured out how to make FairPlay work without licensing and theres no argument why apple's action to stop them was at all better for the consumer.

Again, another ridiculous comment. iPods can play one of the most popular audio fromats around, MP3s. Apple doesn't need to support all formats. And the fact that iPods support MP3s throws out the whole monopoly argument.

You're repeating yourself rather than arguing a point...

There's a difference between BLOCKING others' content on your mp3 player and making it support everyone elses content. Apple is doing the former, which is anti-competitive behavior considering their market share in the mp3 player market (90%?). Noone is saying that apple has to make ipods play WMV files, but rather apple shouldn't sue companies that figure out how to convert their files into fairplay compatible format that works on an ipod.

I don't think you actually know what happened with the Real Media thing either - Real figured out how to encode the music from their store into fair-play like format that worked on ipods. Apple took them to court and changed stuff around to break the compatibility.

Wait a minute! You are saying the solution to this is to violate the DMCA?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik
You're repeating yourself rather than arguing a point...

There's a difference between BLOCKING others' content on your mp3 player and making it support everyone elses content. Apple is doing the former, which is anti-competitive behavior considering their market share in the mp3 player market (90%?). Noone is saying that apple has to make ipods play WMV files, but rather apple shouldn't sue companies that figure out how to convert their files into fairplay compatible format that works on an ipod.

I don't think you actually know what happened with the Real Media thing either - Real figured out how to encode the music from their store into fair-play like format that worked on ipods. Apple took them to court and changed stuff around to break the compatibility.

I'm repeating myself because you obviously have a problem understanding the point. Apple is only responsible for two advertised formats on their players, AAC and MP3. They do not have to allow any other formats on their players. MS BLOCKS ANY modified XBoxs on their network. MS also BLOCKS any non-XBox console from their network. Sony BLOCKS ANY hacks on their PSP by releasing updated firmware. Apple doesn't have to allow jack squat on their player except the formats they advertise they support. If companies want to release a universal codec that just about every player can play including the iPod, they can release it in an MP3 form (DRM free). Now if Apple advertised iPods supported AAC and MP3 and all of a sudden yanked the MP3 support through a firmware update via iTunes, that would be another story.

The REAL situation is a non issue.

None of that has anything to do with an anti-trust lawsuit.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: halik
You're repeating yourself rather than arguing a point...

There's a difference between BLOCKING others' content on your mp3 player and making it support everyone elses content. Apple is doing the former, which is anti-competitive behavior considering their market share in the mp3 player market (90%?). Noone is saying that apple has to make ipods play WMV files, but rather apple shouldn't sue companies that figure out how to convert their files into fairplay compatible format that works on an ipod.

I don't think you actually know what happened with the Real Media thing either - Real figured out how to encode the music from their store into fair-play like format that worked on ipods. Apple took them to court and changed stuff around to break the compatibility.

I'm repeating myself because you obviously have a problem understanding the point. Apple is only responsible for two advertised formats on their players, AAC and MP3. They do not have to allow any other formats on their players. MS BLOCKS ANY modified XBoxs on their network. MS also BLOCKS any non-XBox console from their network. Sony BLOCKS ANY hacks on their PSP by releasing updated firmware. Apple doesn't have to allow jack squat on their player except the formats they advertise they support. If companies want to release a universal codec that just about every player can play including the iPod, they can release it in an MP3 form (DRM free). Now if Apple advertised iPods supported AAC and MP3 and all of a sudden yanked the MP3 support through a firmware update via iTunes, that would be another story.

The REAL situation is a non issue.

None of that has anything to do with an anti-trust lawsuit.

I agree. And the plaintiff's allegations have nothing to do with an anti-trust lawsuit.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

I think the lawsuit is more along the lines that legally downloaded iTunes is locked into use on the iPod and also, you can only download music from iTunes for use on an iPod, no other selection.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

Your point? If you own a PS2 game the only console that will play it is a PS2


This lawsuit will never fly through court....

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

If I own some Zune music, I can't use it on an iPod or a Zen

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

If I own some Zune music, I can't use it on an iPod or a Zen

Which has nothing to do with the apple case.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

Which also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case. You always have the option not to use the product.

 

[fstime]

And Microsoft isn't a monopoly?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

Which also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case. You always have the option not to use the product.

No the point is, there are plenty of other alternatives. Apple doesn't have the market cornered on music. There are severals other ways to obtain music, iTunes is just one option of many. There is nothing in the law that states when designing software, it needs to be universally compatible. Apple designed their infrastructure, they can do with it as they'd like. If they'd like, they could of designed the iPod to ONLY use AAC and only work on the iPod. There is no law stating they can't do other wise. The reason Apple made the iPod compatible with MP3s is because they wouldn't sell as well otherwise. It's a simple as that.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
And Microsoft isn't a monopoly?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

Which also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case. You always have the option not to use the product.

No the point is, there are plenty of other alternatives. Apple doesn't have the market cornered on music. There are severals other ways to obtain music, iTunes is just one option of many. There is nothing in the law that states when designing software, it needs to be universally compatible. Apple designed their infrastructure, they can do with it as they'd like. If they'd like, they could of designed the iPod to ONLY use AAC and only work on the iPod. There is no law stating they can't do other wise. The reason Apple made the iPod compatible with MP3s is because they wouldn't sell as well otherwise. It's a simple as that.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

When it comes to major consumer operating systems, what are the major choices? Windows, Mac OS X, Linux. It's understandable how Microsoft caught flak given its position.

When it comes to MP3 players, there are literally hundreds of choices. When it comes to online music stores, there are likely dozens. So what is the problem here?

[*] Apple doesn't force you to use iTunes to buy music
[*] Apple allows users to convert unprotected WMV files to store on your iPod and you can playback MP3 files.

So what exactly are we arguing about here?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

Which also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case. You always have the option not to use the product.

No the point is, there are plenty of other alternatives. Apple doesn't have the market cornered on music. There are severals other ways to obtain music, iTunes is just one option of many. There is nothing in the law that states when designing software, it needs to be universally compatible. Apple designed their infrastructure, they can do with it as they'd like. If they'd like, they could of designed the iPod to ONLY use AAC and only work on the iPod. There is no law stating they can't do other wise. The reason Apple made the iPod compatible with MP3s is because they wouldn't sell as well otherwise. It's a simple as that.

Weather or not apple has cornered the market depends on what you define as the market. If you call the market any device that makes sounds then they haven't, but if the market is music sales for an ipod or portable fairplay music players then they have cornered the market.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

Exactly. The real problem here is that the iPod has 85% marketshare, and Apple is keeping other music services from producing paid music content that's compatible with the iPod. Worse yet, if you DO buy another MP3 player, Apple makes it extremely difficult for non-technical people to transfer their purchased content to another MP3 player. Hmm... Sounds like an abuse of monopoly power to me!

Let's put it this way... If Microsoft forced all Windows XP users to buy their music from Windows Media Player in order to play it on their PC's, how do you think the other music sellers would react to that?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

Which also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case. You always have the option not to use the product.

No the point is, there are plenty of other alternatives. Apple doesn't have the market cornered on music. There are severals other ways to obtain music, iTunes is just one option of many. There is nothing in the law that states when designing software, it needs to be universally compatible. Apple designed their infrastructure, they can do with it as they'd like. If they'd like, they could of designed the iPod to ONLY use AAC and only work on the iPod. There is no law stating they can't do other wise. The reason Apple made the iPod compatible with MP3s is because they wouldn't sell as well otherwise. It's a simple as that.

Weather or not apple has cornered the market depends on what you define as the market. If you call the market any device that makes sounds then they haven't, but if the market is music sales for an ipod or portable fairplay music players then they have cornered the market.

First of all it's "whether" not "weather." Secondly, popular does not equal "cornered the market." Like I said, there are PLENTY of other options available and Apple doesn't owe ANYONE universal compatibility. They designed their system from the ground up and they can do with it as they'd like. If you don't like Apple's business model (iTunes/iPod), there are PLENTY of other alternatives. It's as simple as that.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

Exactly. The real problem here is that the iPod has 85% marketshare, and Apple is keeping other music services from producing paid music content that's compatible with the iPod. Worse yet, if you DO buy another MP3 player, Apple makes it extremely difficult for non-technical people to transfer their purchased content to another MP3 player. Hmm... Sounds like an abuse of monopoly power to me!

Let's put it this way... If Microsoft forced all Windows XP users to buy their music from Windows Media Player in order to play it on their PC's, how do you think the other music sellers would react to that?

Let me get this straight.

Apple makes a player and sells music to play on it.

If you want a led zepplin song you can buy the cd. You can use napster. You can use yahoo music. You can buy DVD's with the videos and anthology. You can tape off of the radio. You can get it from real. You can borrow it from most metro libraries.

How is apple preventing you from getting the zepplin song?

Your analogy is flawed. Look at your wording - "If Microsoft forced all Window XP user to buy. . ."

How is apple forcing you to buy the IPOD then get all of your songs from them? Hmmm?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

And? You also have the option NOT to use iTunes and an iPod.

Which also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case. You always have the option not to use the product.

No the point is, there are plenty of other alternatives. Apple doesn't have the market cornered on music. There are severals other ways to obtain music, iTunes is just one option of many. There is nothing in the law that states when designing software, it needs to be universally compatible. Apple designed their infrastructure, they can do with it as they'd like. If they'd like, they could of designed the iPod to ONLY use AAC and only work on the iPod. There is no law stating they can't do other wise. The reason Apple made the iPod compatible with MP3s is because they wouldn't sell as well otherwise. It's a simple as that.

Weather or not apple has cornered the market depends on what you define as the market. If you call the market any device that makes sounds then they haven't, but if the market is music sales for an ipod or portable fairplay music players then they have cornered the market.

First of all it's "whether" not "weather." Secondly, popular does not equal "cornered the market." Like I said, there are PLENTY of other options available and Apple doesn't owe ANYONE universal compatibility. They designed their system from the ground up and they can do with it as they'd like. If you don't like Apple's business model (iTunes/iPod), there are PLENTY of other alternatives. It's as simple as that.

Weather apples owes anyone universal compatibillity is for the courts to decided. And apple has cornered the market if you define the market correctly.