Federal lawsuit over iTunes/iPod monopoly

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The iTunes/iPod suit is complete billsh!t. That should be thrown out of court and the plaintiff punched in the face for being a moron.

are you kidding?!? apple doesnt let anyone else use their drm therefore looking people out of using ipods the most dominant device on the market.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 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?

No monoploy has ever forced anyone to buy anything, that is not a test to see if the monopoly is acting illegally.

 

[ultimatebob]

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:

If the XBox 360 or Playstation 3 had 85% marketshare like the iPod does, Microsoft or Sony could basically dictate whatever formats they wanted and the entire gaming industry would have to comply or lose any chance at making a profit.

 

[episodic]

So how come I can't sell electricty through the power companies transmission lines. I really want to. They are locking me out.

I want to sell water, too.

O yea, the local grocery store - I'm mad they are selling groceries. I want to use their shelves to sell groceries I've bought.

I mean they have developed they shelf space and they are not letting competitors stock their groceries there.

 

[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: 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.

You still insist on sounding like a moron and using the wrong word even after you've been corrected? :roll:

Anyway, NO company owes anyone universal compatibility. If that was the case, I want to play my XBox games on a Playstation. Hey, Sony is designing their hardware to keep other's out. Give me a freakin' break.

And Apple has only cornered the market by YOUR definition.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: 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?

OK, but If you want to legally buy the song online and be able to play in on your iPod, where do you have to get it now? That's right, iTunes! Napster's and Yahoo Music's DRM isn't compatible with the iPod, and neither is a host of other online services. I'm sure that Napster and Yahoo Music would love to sell music for the iPod, but Apple is locking them out of 85% of all of the MP3 players out there. Hmm... Still sounds like a monopoly to me.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The iTunes/iPod suit is complete billsh!t. That should be thrown out of court and the plaintiff punched in the face for being a moron.

are you kidding?!? apple doesnt let anyone else use their drm therefore looking people out of using ipods the most dominant device on the market.

Like I said, popular doesn't equal monopoly. If you don't like iTunes or iPod, there are PLENTY of other services AND players to choose from.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: episodic
So how come I can't sell electricty through the power companies transmission lines. I really want to. They are locking me out.

I want to sell water, too.

O yea, the local grocery store - I'm mad they are selling groceries. I want to use their shelves to sell groceries I've bought.

I mean they have developed they shelf space and they are not letting competitors stock their groceries there.

You've made this analogy 6 times now and someone has refuted it every time. Please if can't argue, keep your mouth shut.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The iTunes/iPod suit is complete billsh!t. That should be thrown out of court and the plaintiff punched in the face for being a moron.

are you kidding?!? apple doesnt let anyone else use their drm therefore looking people out of using ipods the most dominant device on the market.

Like I said, popular doesn't equal monopoly. If you don't like iTunes or iPod, there are PLENTY of other services AND players to choose from.

But that's where you're wrong, the concentration of the market is THE FIRST STEP of any antitrust law suit. Basically if you don't have market share (low HHI index), the case gets thrown out right there.

Your argument is analogous to msft in '98 saying that popularity doesn't mean monopoly. We might have the OS that runs on 90% of desktops, but you can always choose linux or unix or apple or beos or ...

 

[KarmaPolice]

Originally posted by: episodic
So how come I can't sell electricty through the power companies transmission lines. I really want to. They are locking me out.

I want to sell water, too.

O yea, the local grocery store - I'm mad they are selling groceries. I want to use their shelves to sell groceries I've bought.

I mean they have developed they shelf space and they are not letting competitors stock their groceries there.

Those are not valid arguements.

The electricity is a government created monopoly. There are certain areas of production where one company will do the job the cheapest and thus give the most utility to the people. Electricity is often best provided by one company cause they can do it cheaper if 3 or 4 did it.

The grocery store...come on..thats private property, they can sell whatever they want to there.

 

[KarmaPolice]

There are plenty of other players that dont let you use napster and other services. I have a sony and i cant use napster or anything else. I know this doesnt matter to the case but i am just saying.

Ok if they define the market as IPODS(which i doubt they will do cause what it only has 80% of a bigger market) then i still odnt see the problem. Yes they make it easier for you to download using apple...but you can still get music from a butt load of other places and it WILL go to your IPOD.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
There are plenty of other players that dont let you use napster and other services. I have a sony and i cant use napster or anything else. I know this doesnt matter to the case but i am just saying.

Ok if they define the market as IPODS(which i doubt they will do cause what it only has 80% of a bigger market) then i still odnt see the problem. Yes they make it easier for you to download using apple...but you can still get music from a butt load of other places and it WILL go to your IPOD.

I would guess they are going to go more towards the selling of music form the record compains POV rather then consumers.

 

[JackBurton]

Guys, I am done arguing for Apple. I'm not paid to be their representative so I won't waste anymore of my time arguing for them. Good day to all. And please carry on.

 

[ultimatebob]

So how come I can't sell electricty through the power companies transmission lines. I really want to. They are locking me out.

I want to sell water, too.

Odd analogies...

You can sell electricity through the power company's lines in many states. A lot of companies actually get paid for producing power from their backup generators and selling the excess back to the power company.

There certainly isn't anything stopping you from selling water, either.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: 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?

OK, but If you want to legally buy the song online and be able to play in on your iPod, where do you have to get it now? That's right, iTunes! Napster's and Yahoo Music's DRM isn't compatible with the iPod, and neither is a host of other online services. I'm sure that Napster and Yahoo Music would love to sell music for the iPod, but Apple is locking them out of 85% of all of the MP3 players out there. Hmm... Still sounds like a monopoly to me.

Wrong. I can go to emusic.com, podsafe audio, independent band websites, amazon's free music downloads, etc. . .

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

OK, but If you want to legally buy the song online and be able to play in on your iPod, where do you have to get it now? That's right, iTunes! Napster's and Yahoo Music's DRM isn't compatible with the iPod, and neither is a host of other online services. I'm sure that Napster and Yahoo Music would love to sell music for the iPod, but Apple is locking them out of 85% of all of the MP3 players out there. Hmm... Still sounds like a monopoly to me.

Wrong. I can go to emusic.com, podsafe audio, independent band websites, amazon's free music downloads, etc. . .

I said legally buy, not get for free. The only site on that list that charges for music is emusic.com.

 

[episodic]

How about any host of independent websites. . . that charge.

cdbaby is another. . .

 

[Kur]

I swear to god if it's real player again I'm gonna shoot myself. Can real not get it through their head that their media player and hardware sucks?

 

[Hacp]

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.

Unless you, *GASP*, rip the music to a cd and rip it back to your computer. I mean who would have ever thought to do that?

 

[Hacp]

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?

Extremely diffucult for non-technincal people? I mean, how technical is it to burn your downloded itunes music file to a cd? How technical can ripping that cd back to your computer be? Not that technical in my opinion.

And yes, Apple is keeping other services from using the Itunes Music store. They developed the Itunes Music store in order to support the Ipod. They are not just going to let other companies piggyback. Its kinda like how nintendo is offering the option to download old nintendo games to the wii for a price. Nintendo is not going to let microsoft or sony have acess to its network of games for free. Nope, nada, not going to happen.

 

[Hacp]

No monoploy has ever forced anyone to buy anything, that is not a test to see if the monopoly is acting illegally.

Except there are things called singles and albums that you can purchase at the local store. These stores are everywhere. Instead of going online and purchasing music, you can put on a jacket, go outside a few blocks, purchase the single or cd that you want, and then enjoy it DRM free. Online music downloads, despite what many people think, are only a fraction of the sales that the music industry generates.

 

[Hacp]

OK, but If you want to legally buy the song online and be able to play in on your iPod, where do you have to get it now? That's right, iTunes! Napster's and Yahoo Music's DRM isn't compatible with the iPod, and neither is a host of other online services. I'm sure that Napster and Yahoo Music would love to sell music for the iPod, but Apple is locking them out of 85% of all of the MP3 players out there. Hmm... Still sounds like a monopoly to me.

Amazon.com sells Cds the last time I checked. Maybe they don't now?

 

[Hacp]

But that's where you're wrong, the concentration of the market is THE FIRST STEP of any antitrust law suit. Basically if you don't have market share (low HHI index), the case gets thrown out right there.

Your argument is analogous to msft in '98 saying that popularity doesn't mean monopoly. We might have the OS that runs on 90% of desktops, but you can always choose linux or unix or apple or beos or ...

Except that music is different from an OS. Having everything form linux and unix compatible for windows is very hard. There are very few alternatives.

In apple's case, you can buy cds. Yes, you can buy cds! You are not limited to the Itunes music store. And added to the fact, you can burn itunes music store songs onto a Cd and burn it back to your computer as an MP3 if you really really want to purcahse music for another player.

 

[Hacp]

To close my arguement, I need to say this. Think of who is really losing out. No, it is not the customers. It is the music industry. The music industry has already stated that they want a tiered download service, where for example, popular songs would be downloaded for a higher price, lets say 2 dollars, while less popular songs would be downloaded for 50 cents.

The thing keeping the industry from doing this is apple. Apple right now does have a comanding marketshare in both the mp3 player market, and the online download industry. If the music companies piss apple off, then alot of their sales will be lost. But, if they get apple to cave in, they can start freely charging higher prices.

Lets not pretend the music industry won't do this. They are basically an oligopoly afterall.

 

[smack Down]

CDs are a different market. They don't have anything to do with this.

Who wins or loses do to an illegal monoploy also is irrelavent. A monoploy lowering prices is just as illegal as a monoploy raising prices. The fact that one company has complete control of the price of downloadable music is very good evidence that the company has a monoploy on downloadable music. A company doesn't have to control 100% of the market for it to be a monoploy.